Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL,

"to fulfil the requirements of Section 30 of the Commercial Gas Act 1940"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

EAST GRINSTEAD GAS AND WATER BILL,

"to provide for the conversion and consolidation of the existing capital of the East Grinstead Gas and Water Company; to authorise the Company to raise additional capital; to empower the Company to construct new waterworks and take water from the River Medway and to confer further powers upon the Company with reference to their gas and water undertakings; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL,

"to constitute the borough of Ilford a county borough and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL,

"to amend the Manchester Ship Canal (Staff Superannuation) Act 1926; to confer further powers upon the Manchester Ship Canal Company; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL,

"to fulfil the requirements of Section 18 of the South Suburban Gas Act, 1940"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES STIPENDIARY JUSTICE BILL,

"to amend the Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary Justice Acts 1839 to 1895";

presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to revive the powers of the Wadebridge Rural District Council for the construction of waterworks; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Warrington to construct works for the conveyance of coal to their electricity generating station and to appropriate and use portions of Bank Park for the extension of their Town Hall and Municipal Offices; to make further provision with regard to the water undertaking of the Corporation and the health local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL,

"to empower the Weaver Navigation Trustees to acquire lands; to extend the jurisdiction of the Trustees; and for other purposes."; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WISBECH WATER BILL,

"to confirm the construction by the Wisbech Water Works Company of certain waterworks; to empower the Company to construct new works and to raise additional money; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Trade Unions (Lists of Vacancies)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour when his Ministry discontinued supplying lists of vacancies to trade unions employment bureaux; and for what reason.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): As indicated in my reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member on 18th January arrangements exist for


supplying certain trade union organisations with lists of vacancies notified to my Appointments Department. This arrangement has not been discontinued and I regret if my hon. Friend received a contrary impression as a result of my reply to a supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers).

Sir J. Mellor: In those circumstances will my right hon. Friend say why the same arrangement cannot be made for private employment agencies?

Mr. Bevin: There are only two professional organisations which the Appointments Department circulates and neither one of them is a fee paying agency.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply very clearly, but in view of the fact that his reply to my supplementary question on 18th January was ambiguous, would he now take steps to make the position abundantly clear?

Mr. Bevin: I think my answer this morning does so.

Drawing Offices (Inspection)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour why, in his original L.S. Memorandum No. 8, it was stated that generally speaking it had been found possible to get more inside information from the Drawing Office Committee than from any other source; why the phrasing has now been changed to the words "valuable information"; and why the inspectors were invited to obtain information about the firm's plans regarding postwar reconstruction.

Mr. Bevin: This was a statement of what inspectors had, in fact, found to be the case. In its original form, it was thought to be open to misconception, and it was accordingly modified to convey what was intended in a way which would not be misconstrued. With regard to the last part of the Question, a firm's intentions as to post-war reconstruction may have an important bearing on the present use being made of draughtsmen. It was felt, however, that this question could for the time being be deleted and it was removed early in 1944.

Mr. Etherton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance

that the type of inspection which this instruction advocates will not be put into operation in respect of any other inspections, and that this type of inspection will not, in fact, be carried out in its origanal form?

Mr. Bevin: I could not say that. It will be carried out in a modified form, but, as I have indicated, draughtsmen present a very great difficulty at the present moment owing to the enormous claims being made upon them. I cannot give an undertaking that I shall not need to have a similar form of inspection for other grades, if I am to get private industry restarted and labour redistributed.

Mr. Etherton: But does not my right hon. Friend realise that what is advocated here is going behind the backs of the management to try to get hold of information from the staffs about the type of work they are doing?

Mr. Bevin: I disagree with that entirely. A man is a free agent and we have to interview a man to find out his ability, apart from the employer. The man is not the property of the employer yet.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention under L.S. Memorandum No. 8 that officials should carry out investigations independent of the management, in view of the fact that such methods are conducive to bad relationship and inefficiency.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. It is stated in several places in the memorandum to which the hon. Member refers, that the investigations are to be carried out in the closest consultation with the management.

Mr. Robertson: Having regard to the very great success which has attended the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to get men for the needs of the country at the present time, may I appeal to him to have this memorandum withdrawn, because it can only cause bad feeling and bad blood?

Mr. Bevin: No, it has not caused bad feeling or bad blood. When you have to get certain special types of men, you have to make special investigations. The real trouble is that the training of draughtsmen was so neglected between the two wars that we started this war with only 14,000 for the whole country.

Mr. Robertson: Why were so many draughtsmen called up for the Forces, and why were the women who took their places also called up?

Mr. Bevin: The draughtsmen were called up in their trades for the purpose of modifying implements of war.

Redundant Factory Workers

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of workers are shortly to be discharged from a factory engaged on war work, the name of which has been communicated to him, on the grounds of redundancy; that the discharge notices have recently had to be withdrawn at the instance of the Man-power Board owing to the fact that no alternative work was available for the redundant workers; and if he is satisfied that, when the new discharge notices take effect, alternative work of national importance will be available for all the discharged workers.

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made, and will write my hon. Friend.

ELECTION CANDIDATES AND AGENTS (RELEASE FROM FORCES)

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the demobilisation of political agents from the Forces.

Mr. Bevin: The Government have given careful consideration to this matter and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I propose to circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT describing the arrangements which will apply to candidates, agents and others.

Sir D. Hacking: Will the right hon. Gentleman's answer indicate an early release of the agents belonging to the political parties?

Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. Friend had better read the answer.

Following is the statement:

General Election—Release of Candidates, Agents, Organisers and Officials.

Candidates

1. Subject to over-riding military considerations, potential candidates on the short list who are serving in the Forces will be granted adequate facilities (includ-

ing, if necessary, short special leave) to enable them to appear personally before the Selection Committee of their prospective constituencies.

2. Application will be made by Party Headquarters to the Ministry of Labour and National Service and will indicate when the Election Committee is to meet. A small Committee consisting of representatives of the four main Party organisations will assist the Ministry of Labour and National Service in making their recommendations. If a favourable recommendation is made, the Service Departments will take the necessary steps to bring the candidate back to this country if he is overseas, but only normal travelling facilities will be used. The Service Departments will inform Party Headquarters when the man in question is likely to be available.

3. Adopted candidates will be temporarily released in adequate time before the Election. To enable this to be done, candidates who have already been adopted and are serving in or within easy reach of this country, including those selected under the arrangements in paragraph 2 above, will not be sent to more distant Commands pending the Election. Subject to the exigencies of the Service, adopted candidates serving in distant Commands will be brought home as soon as possible. If not elected to Parliament, adopted candidates will be recalled to the Forces.

Agents, Organisers and Officials

4. There will be provision for the early release from the Forces, Civil Defence Services and industry of:

(a) recognised constituency agents or organisers, irrespective of the basis of their remuneration and whether they are to serve in the constituency to which they were previously attached or in some other constituency, and
(b) the key staff of Headquarters and Regional Offices of political Parties. Release from the Forces will be subject to over-riding military considerations and to the individual's consent.

5. So far as releases from the Forces and Civil Defence Services are concerned, persons who were formerly part-time or honorary agents will not be excluded if now required as full-time agents, but in such cases it must be established that the persons were, in fact, formerly part-time


or honorary agents. Persons who have not been agents before will, however, be excluded, and former constituency agents now wanted for Headquarters and Regional Offices will not be eligible for release unless they are posted at home and can easily be spared.

6. Agents, organisers and officials will be liable to recall to the Forces if they do not perform the work for which they have been released and will, in any event, be subject to recall after the Election.

General

7. The above rules will apply to the smaller political Parties and to Independent candidates, but the Ministry of Labour and National Service must be satisfied in any particular case that the candidate genuinely intends to contest the seat and that any agent applied for is wanted for a constituenecy which the Party or candidate intends to contest.

8. Temporary civil servants covered by the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary Candidates) Order, 1927, who wish to become Parliamentary candidates will be permitted to apear before a Selection Committee and, if necessary, to address a subsequent "Adoption Meeting," whether held in public or not. They will not be permitted to appear again on any political platform or take part in any political activity or propaganda while they remain in the Civil Service. If adopted, they must resign from the Civil Service at a date not later than the date of the announcement that a General Election is to take place and their resignation will be final.

9. The above arrangements will cover the Election in Northern Ireland for the Imperial Parliament.

10. Special emergency arrangements will be made if the Election should take place at an unexpectedly early date.

LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFFS (EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet approved any scheme for the recruitment and training of ex-Servicemen and women for employment on the technical and professional staffs of local authorities in the post-war period.

Mr. Bevin: Schemes of this nature are not my responsibility, except in so far as awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme are concerned. I understand, however, that a special scheme for the training of sanitary inspectors has been worked out by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, in consultation with the Royal Sanitary Institute and Sanitary Inspectors' Examination Joint Board and the Sanitary Inspectors' Association and I have agreed that ex-Servicemen and women accepted for this training would, if otherwise eligible, qualify for awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Sanitary Inspectors' Association have given a splendid lead to other professional organisations; and will he not ask them to do all they can to train ex-Servicemen and women for important work in connection with local government?

Mr. Bevin: As I explained in the opening part of my answer, the real work has to be done by the Minister of Health; all I have to do is to sanction the grant for the further education for which he asks.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in most of these professions a premium is required, and that his Department is not now capable of paying that premium under the Further Education Scheme?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the vacant appointments advertised by local authorities during the past two months are stated to be permanent appointments, he will communicate with all local authorities calling their attention to the desirability of making appointments of a temporary character during the war to ensure that the prospects of promotion of the local government officers who are serving in His Majesty's Forces are not prejudiced.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's purpose. I have no doubt that local authorities generally are fully aware of the importance of securing that purpose so far as possible, but I propose to


draw the attention of the local government associations to the terms of this Question and answer and to suggest that they might be given suitable publicity.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Deliveries, London (Man-power)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that Army personnel were recently employed in the distribution of coal in the London area, he will see to it that in future a sufficient number of employees accustomed to the job are left in civilian life so that merchants may deliver coal without recourse to military assistance.

Mr. Bevin: Having regard to the manpower position generally, I am satisfied that existing arrangements for call-up are not inadequate to meet normal conditions. When, however, conditions are abnormal it is necessary to take abnormal measures.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does it not appear anomalous to my right hon. Friend that he conscripts men for the Fighting Services and then returns them in military clothes to do civilian work? When he talks of special conditions, surely he is aware that the winter in this country is severe as a rule?

Mr. Bevin: This is the first winter for four years that it has been necessary to do it.

Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when normal weather conditions return, there will be sufficient labour for the delivery of coal in London?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance. The amount which the War Cabinet has decided I must find for the Forces this year may interfere with it.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the people of London who have been suffering during this cold spell are deeply grateful to the soldiers for the assistance they have given?

Worker's Appeal, Bargoed

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. B. Evans, 78, Park Road,

Bargoed, after having had three fits underground, appealed to the Local Appeal Board at Bargoed for release from the mining industry; that the Appeal Board unanimously recommended his release on the ground that he was a danger to his fellow workmen; that the National Service officer sought further evidence about the man after the hearing by the Appeal Board and refused to allow the man to leave the mines; and if this action has received his approval.

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend have particular regard for the part of the Question which deals with the function of the National Service officer in getting additional evidence after the hearing of the tribunal, otherwise we shall lose all faith in the Appeal Board?

DEMOBILISATION (SEAGOING SERVICE)

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Minister of Labour whether men now serving in the Armed Forces will be able to count any service they may have had during the war in the Merchant Navy when the question of their release from the Armed Forces comes under consideration.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. It has been decided that service on British seagoing merchant ships and on Allied and neutral seagoing ships chartered to the Minister of War Transport during the war shall be regarded as war service for the purpose of determining the order of release from the Armed Forces after the defeat of Germany.

TRANSPORT WORKER'S SUSPENSION, DUDLEY (APPEAL)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on 31st August, 1944, Mr. G. Robinson, a driver employed at the Dudley garage of the Midland Red Omnibus Company, Limited, was scheduled for duty from 11.30 a.m. until 10 p.m., but as he was due on duty again at 5 a.m. next morning he was promised he would be relieved at 9 p.m. but was not; that he was suspended for one day for leaving duty at 9 o'clock, an arrangement endorsed by the local appeal board of the Ministry of


Labour; and whether he will cause the case to be at once reopened and the punishment rescinded.

Mr. Bevin: The facts of this case, as presented on behalf of both the worker and the employer, were carefully considered by the local appeal board who were unanimously of the opinion that the suspension was justified. In these circumstances there is no further action I can take in the matter.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not intolerable that a Labour Minister should defend such conditions as these, and that men should be punished in such circumstances? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his reply with his earlier statement that the working man is not yet the property of the employer?

Mr. Bevin: He had the right of appeal and went to an impartial board. I do not go into the facts of suspension and I accept the decision of the board.

BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS, LONDON (MAN-POWER)

Mr. Manning: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployed building operatives willing to work on the repair of war damaged houses in London are prevented from doing so because firms cannot secure Ministry of Works contracts, not having the men, and are refused the men, not having the contracts; and what steps he is taking to employ these men.

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware that there are unemployed building workers prevented from working on the repair of bomb damaged houses for the reason stated.

Mr. Manning: If I send to my right hon. Friend a letter which states that men are walking the streets looking for jobs, and that some of them are experienced craftsmen in the building trade, who have expressed their willingness to work on bomb damage repairs in London, will he look into the matter?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

ELECTORAL REGISTER (PRINTING)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to make available additional assistance to firms of printers who are required to carry

out the printing of the new Electoral Register in view of the delay in the preparation of such registers in certain constituencies which, under present conditions, is likely to accrue; and if he is aware that the lack of labour in the printing industry is resulting in electoral registration officers having to produce the registers by duplication methods in their own offices, and the dislocation in such offices which will thereby accrue.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and my officers are taking all steps open to them to meet the requirements. In co-operation with organisations of employers and workpeople in the printing industry, I have made special arrangements for transferring from other industries to firms engaged on printing the Electoral Register, suitable ex-printing operatives who are known to be willing to return to the printing industry for this purpose, and whose transfer can be arranged without serious detriment to essential war work.

Colonel Greenwell: Is the Minister aware that were it necessary to hold a General Election in certain constituencies within a reasonably short period it would be impossible to operate the new Electoral Register, because of the difficulty in getting labour?

Mr. Bevin: I know the difficulties in all spheres of labour at the moment, but I am doing my best to return to the printing trade sufficient labour by the date stated in the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

British Personnel, Indian Army (Leave)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for India how many years continuous service overseas must be completed by British ranks of the Indian Army before they are given the benefit of the 61 days' leave scheme which is to take the place of the Python scheme for such British ranks.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the permanent cadre of the India Unattached List. The rule for them is the same as for British officers of the Indian Army and they must have completed five years' overseas service before they are eligible for home leave.


British ranks of the Indian Army who are not permanent members of the India Unattached List are eligible for home posting under the War Office scheme.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the fact that, for other purposes, India is a command in which the period of overseas service is least, will not my right hon. Friend consider the case of the men who have to spend five years in India before they can come back even for 61 days?

Mr. Amery: I fully understand the difficulties, which are not only shipping difficulties but operational difficulties. These make it difficult for commanders-in-chief to spare a large number of highly experienced men simultaneously.

Mr. Hogg: Does not the efficiency of an officer or a man, after five years out there, become seriously impaired, and is not this a very short-sighted policy?

Mr. Amery: This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the military authorities on the spot who, I am sure, are as well aware of that as my hon. Friend.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is not the Minister aware that letters now being received by Members of this House show a state of mind in which many officers cannot be any longer regarded as necessary for operational duties; and is it not the case that they ought to be given leave as early as possible, if the morale of the Army is to be maintained?

Mr. Amery: I am fully aware of the fact that many officers and men feel the hardship of long separation from this country, but whatever they may feel or write on that subject, I do not believe that they would allow their efficiency to be impaired.

Mr. Bevan: They cannot help it.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that married Air Force personnel in India come back after three years, and is it not very unfair that the Regular soldier should have to serve an extra two years in India?

Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend will understand that the extra period which may be served by a Regular soldier in the British Army in India is a matter for the War Office. What I am dealing

with is the question of those belonging to the Indian Army, which requires men with special experience in handling Indian troops. I am sorry to say that it is not so easy to spare such men as other British troops. We do our best in the matter, but we have to consider operational necessities.

Mr. Hogg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Education

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India what further developments have taken place respecting future educational expansion and, in particular, regarding the Sargeant proposals.

Mr. Amery: I understand that the question is still under consideration in India.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister indicate when he is lkely to have a Report, because this matter is extremely urgent?

Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Member will realise that this question of education is only part of a very wide programme of reconstruction, covering many years, which the Government of India have under consideration in consultation with the various Provincial Governments.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that the Sargeant proposals are likely to be adopted?

Mr. Amery: I must leave some things to the Government of India.

Mr. Molson: Is not education a transferred Provincial subject?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, my hon. Friend is quite right. This is a matter in which the Government of India can only take action after consultation with Provincial Governments, who are all studying this problem, among others.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not this House interested in the matter, too?

Congress Members (Restrictions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India how many Congress members have recently been arrested and interned, for what reason, and under what circumstances and conditions.

Mr. Amery: I have no information beyond a Press report from Bihar that five prominent members of Congress have been served with orders confining them to the limits of their home villages. It appears that following their recent activities the Provincial Government has imposed this restriction as a precautionary measure to prevent a situation which might again, as in 1942, interfere with the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman get the particulars, and give them to the House at an early date?

Mr. Amery: I have no doubt that I shall get the particulars shortly.

BRITISH PERSONNEL, PAIFORCE (INCOME TAX)

Mr. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for India whether a decision has now been reached in agreement with the authorities in India to re-transfer British soldiers serving with the Paiforce to United Kingdom Income Tax laws; and are the soldiers concerned registered as voters in elections to this House.

Mr. Amery: I understand the hon. Member is referring to British soldiers attached to Indian Army units in Paiforce. I have just heard from the Government of India that the accounts of the British other ranks in question are in the process of transfer to home paymasters, and they will thus be subject to British Income Tax. They have the same rights as regards registration as voters as other British soldiers.

Mr. Manning: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the promise he made to me some months ago that he would let me know about this? Is he aware that I have heard from a soldier in India about it, and that if the right hon. Gentleman had remembered to let me know my Question would have been unnecessary?

Mr. Amery: I could not answer earlier, because I have only just heard that the arrangements have been completed.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (ELECTORAL DISQUALIFICATION)

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what conditions conscientious objectors

were disqualified from registration as Parliamentary and local government electors after the last war; and whether it is proposed to adopt any similar procedure after this war in the case of those who have not only refused to fight but also to undertake alternative forms of national service.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Representation of the People Act of 1918 disqualified from being registered as Parliamentary or local government electors until five years after the official termination of the war conscientious objectors who had been exempted from all military service and members of the Forces who had been awarded detention or imprisonment for an offence against military law which they represented to be the result of a conscientious objection to military service, unless they could prove within one year of that date by means of a certificate from the Central Tribunal that they had been engaged in work of national importance. The arrangements for dealing with conscientious objection in this war under the National Service Acts have been rather different. Parliament has not provided for any such differentiation under the new electoral legislation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not true that many conscientious objectors, disfranchised after the last war, became Members of this House, some of them Cabinet Ministers, too?

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of Members who were elected to this House during the war, as soldiers, quickly had conscientious objections about remaining in the Army, and decided to stay in the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is an imputation which should not have been made about hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE SERVICE

Arbitration Machinery

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement to the House giving his reasons for refusing the claims of the police, the auxiliary police and the Defence Services for the institution of arbitration machinery for dealing with wages and other conditions of service.

Mr. H. Morrison: As regards the regular police, the concession of formal arbitration facilities would involve a revision of the consultative machinery established under the Police Act, 1919, and I have informed the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation that the Government are not prepared to undertake any such revision at the present time. So far as the police auxiliaries are concerned, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) on 18th January, it has been decided that their pay and general conditions of service shall be assimilated to those of the regular police, and it follows that the Government's decision on arbitration must apply equally to them. I consider that there is no occasion at this stage of the war to alter the existing arrangements as affecting the Civil Defence Services.

Mr. Brown: May I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Question, which asks whether he will give a statement of the reasons which led to the refusal of the claims of these services? I listened carefully to his reply and there is not a hint of a reason anywhere in it.

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I think he will find that there is a reason in the answer that I have given.

Mr. Brown: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment, in the absence of any sort of reply.

Pensions and Promotion

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the dissatisfaction in the police service due to the injustice of Section 29 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and the lack of promotion facilities caused thereby, what action is proposed to ensure that the best type of man will be attracted to, and remain in, the police service in the post-war years.

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume my hon. Friend has in mind the fact that Section 29 (1, a) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, has the effect that persons who joined the police service on or after 1st July, 1919, are required to serve 30 years before qualifying for a full pension, but I cannot agree that this has had any substantial effect on promotion facilities, particularly having regard to the increased number of

higher posts created since 1921. As regards future arrangements, as I explained in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) on 18th January, proposals for revising the basic pay of the regular police are to be laid before the Police Council at an early date; and an expert committee is now considering certain long-term questions affecting the maintenance and improvement of the efficiency of the police service after the war.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that at a meeting of the Police Federation in September last a resolution was passed and forwarded to him in which considerable dissatisfaction was expressed at the operation of the Section, and that the service will not be attractive until it has been amended or removed?

Mr. Morrison: Not only am I aware of that, but I have met the Federation on this and other matters and have not felt able to accept their point of view.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the chief cause of dissatisfaction is that he insists on being judge and jury in every case in which he and the police are concerned?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think the hon. Member is such an authority on the police as he is making out.

Mr. Collindridge: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that these conditions are adversely altered from what they were when the men joined; and is it not a fact that in the metropolitan area, altered conditions have prevailed by arrangement between the men and the authorities concerned?

Mr. Morrison: That raises complicated matters but on the whole, in the light of the pensions paid to the police, I do not think that 30 years' service is excessive.

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in the Metropolitan police force; that it is partly due to the stagnation in promotion; and what action is proposed to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. H. Morrison: For such dissatisfaction as there is in the Metropolitan Police


on the question of promotion, the main ground is, I think, not so much the method of promotion adopted as the fact that the number of higher posts available is of necessity insufficient to enable more than a proportion of the qualified men to be promoted. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is essential in the interests of efficiency that the best men should be selected for the higher posts, and, whatever method is adopted, there is a likelihood that those passed over will feel a sense of grievance. The present situation is to some extent exceptional, in view of the necessity on man-power grounds to retain in the force a number of officers who might otherwise have retired and the suspension of recruitment since the outbreak of war, and the question is one which will need to be reviewed as a whole in connection with the post-war organisation of the police.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if pension rights were restored to officers who joined the force prior to 1921, it would, within the next two years, permit of more than 1,600 promotions?

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but I have to consider these things on their merits, and in the light of justice to the taxpayer as well as to the police.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Minister of Labour that there are large numbers of young miners who would be delighted to become policemen?

Widows' Pensions

Captain Sidney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any action is intended to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Police Widows' Pensions which was signed 23rd July 1941.

Mr. H. Morrison: When this Committee reported, it was not possible to introduce legislation to give effect to their proposals, as the Police Federation were unable to accept the Committee's recommendation on the fundamental question of the incidence of the cost of the proposed increases. The position has now been radically changed by the publication of the Government's proposals for National Insurance. The questions raised in the Snell Committee's report can no longer be con-

sidered in isolation, but will fall to be reviewed as part of the general problems arising from the introduction of the National Insurance scheme.

Sir Patrick Hannon: As there are cases of real grievance among these police widows, surely the right hon. Gentleman could do something pending the introduction of a National Insurance Bill?

Mr. Morrison: There was a fair and impartial committee and tribunal, before which evidence was given, and they made recommendations, but the Police Federation would not take on the burden of contributions, which the committee recommended. It is not fair to put the responsibility on me.

Miss Rathbone: Does the slackness of the Police Federation exonerate the Home Office from its responsibility for carrying out the recommendations of the report, which was unanimous and which inferred that there was severe hardship among police widows, which perhaps cannot be remedied for some years?

Mr. Morrison: I have not accused the Police Federation of slackness. It is a difference of opinion. If the men strongly object to making a contribution, it would be going very far to enforce a contribution on them.

Mr. Collindridge: Will the improvements contemplated by my right hon. Friend be made retrospective to present cases?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for the Minister of National Insurance.

EVACUATED SCHOOLS (FIRE PROTECTION)

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken by the N.F.S. to ensure adequate fire protection in private houses now occupied by evacuated schools.

Mr. H. Morrison: The National Fire Service has no authority to prescribe the precautions to be taken against fire in private premises. The provision of adequate precautions is a matter for the owner or occupier. Comprehensive guidance on the subject is given in a handbook on "Fire Precautions in Schools," issued by the Home Office in 1935, a new


edition of which is to be published in the near future. The National Fire Service will be glad to afford school authorities any assistance they can. Application should be made through the fire force commander.

Sir T. Cook: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I put down the Question there has been a fire in a well-known girls' school at Ascot? Will he institute some form of compulsory night watching in all schools of reasonable size?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the responsibility of those who conduct such schools is known, and I think it must be on them.

INDUSTRIAL DERMATITIS

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the medical referees are now describing by other names conditions that were formerly diagnosed as industrial dermatitis; and whether, the patients are thus deprived of their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he will take steps to revise the definition.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware that there has been any such change as my hon. Friend suggests. If he will furnish me with the information, the matter will be looked into.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is a common practice to describe as eczema, or pustular pompolyx, what was formerly described as industrial dermatitis, and that there is a widespread feeling that this is an insurance company ramp?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. The statutory definition is "dermatitis produced by dust or liquids." If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Emergency Water Installations (Removal)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he gave the orders for the removal of E.S.W. tanks and pipes; and if so, why.

Mr. H. Morrison: There is no intention at present of dismantling the emergency water installations as a whole; but in view of the reduced risk of heavy incendiary attack I felt justified in authorising the National Fire Service to begin to remove certain classes of emergency water installation which might cause inconvenience. This applies in particular to steel tanks which have become too corroded to be worth repairing, and installations that obstruct the highway. In the areas more remote from the likelihood of attack, a beginning is also being made with the removal of any installations that, from an operational point of view, are now unnecessary. In particular, I have taken into account the desirability of freeing possible housing sites. In all cases, I think the dismantling of the installations is in the public interest.

Mr. Bowles: In view of the fact that there is now less danger of aerial incendiary attacks, cannot my right hon. Friend state that he will raise the blackout?

Mr. Morrison: That, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Paper.

Fire Guard Duties (Women)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether women can now be relieved from compulsory fire-watching of business premises, where that still obtains.

Mr. H. Morrison: Fire-guard duties at business premises have either been completely suspended or substantially reduced and further relief will be given as soon as circumstances permit. At this late stage, I do not consider it desirable to embark upon the complicated task of revising the system of exemption from those duties.

National Fire Service (Reductions)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to close down some of the N.F.S. centres in the outlying parts of the country which are no longer the object of enemy air attack.

Mr. H. Morrison: Considerable reductions have already been made both in the administrative centres and operational controls of the National Fire Service, more particularly in the non-vulnerable areas. Similar reductions are being made in other areas as circumstances permit.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the conditions at Old Colwyn, as a typical case, where, I understand, the duties were for a time suspended and are now being renewed?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

Shelter Accident, Bethnal Green (Claims)

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the claims on the Bethnal Green Borough Council arising out of the Bethnal Green shelter case; and as to the position of those Servicemen who, owing to absence overseas, were debarred by the Local Authorities Limitation Act from sustaining any claim they might have.

Mr. H. Morrison: The matter is being actively considered but I regret that I am not yet able to announce a decision.

Sir P. Harris: As this disaster happened over 18 months ago, will not the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind soon so that those who are making claims will know what their position is and so that the borough council will know what their financial liabilities are likely to be?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend's supplementary is very misleading when he talks about 18 months since the disaster occurred. It is only a few weeks since the latest legal decision was given in the courts.

Sir P. Harris: I am referring to when the disaster took place from the point of view of the victims. Their interest arose directly it took place.

Mr. Morrison: There may be more than one view about that. I took steps with the Minister of Pensions at once, and the Minister acted within 24 hours and recognised these cases for payment and benefit under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, although it is doubtful whether he was bound to do so. Credit is due to the Government for the promptness with which they acted.

Mr. Silverman: With reference to the latter half of the Question, can my right hon. Friend give some undertaking that Servicemen who were not on the spot and whose time might have run out will not be faced with a technical defence by the local authority when they return?

Mr. Morrison: I can only say that that is being carefully considered, but I am not in a position to make a statement about it.

PRISON COMMISSIONERS (REPORT)

Mr. Astor: asked, the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he now proposes to publish a Report of the Prison Commissioners dealing with their activities since 1939.

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 30th January to my hon. Friend the Junior Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey).

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that there is ample paper now available—so says the Minister of Information—and as there are printing facilities in His Majesty's Prisons, cannot my right hon. Friend try to get this report out?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about paper supplies, but with regard to printing facilities I can assure my hon. Friend that there is very great difficulty about them, as I have good reason to know.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Cannot my right hon. Friend, pending the issue of a fuller report, issue a brief summary of only three or four pages giving the essential statistics?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but I am not sure whether it would be regarded as desirable. We are really in great difficulties about printing and must be careful about what we print.

CHILDREN'S HOMES, LONDON (REPORT)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent disclosures, he will call for a Report on conditions prevailing in children's homes under the administration of local authorities; and will he arrange that those who make the inquiries are not members of local authorities and that they will include at least one member of the medical profession.

Mr. H. Morrison: The homes referred to in this Question will come within the scope of the Committee which is being set up jointly by the Minister of Health, the


Minister of Education and myself. I have noted my hon. Friend's views about the composition of the Committee, but I cannot accept his implication that no member of any local authority can be relied on to form a sound judgment on this matter.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public conscience is seriously perturbed about recent revelations and the inefficiency of municipally and State controlled homes?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend should not introduce prejudices of that kind. There are plenty of other homes that will have to be investigated.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing public anxiety about the whole treatment of orphan children, not only in State and municipal homes, but all round, and will he do his best to allay this anxiety by holding a proper public inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: That is exactly why the committee is being appointed.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear, so that there shall be no uncertainty about the question, that voluntary authorities will also be investigated; and is he aware that many of us, without any political feeling in the matter, are seriously concerned about the treatment of children in both types of homes?

Mr. Morrison: I am entirely in agreement with the spirit of what my Noble Friend says. The inquiry will cover all types of homes.

REMAND HOMES, LONDON (REPORT)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the administration of remand homes in London.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have now received the report and have arranged for it to be published as a Command Paper as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Education whether, with a view to progressive improvement and to assist school

authorities with practical advice, he will consider arranging for systematic inspection by travelling experts, serving under his Department, of the arrangements in force for the feeding of schoolchildren throughout the country.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): The arrangements for the feeding of schoolchildren are systematically inspected by the expert inspectors on the staff of my Department, and one of their main functions is to assist local education authorities and school authorities generally with practical advice on the planning and management of the school meals service.

School Premises (Heating)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education what steps have been taken to ensure that elementary and secondary schools are adequately heated during the present cold period; and if he will permit schoolchildren to remain in warm school buildings under suitable supervision where their homes are without heat.

Mr. Butler: The responsibility for ensuring that school premises are adequately heated rests with the local education authority or the governing bodies of the schools concerned. It is a matter for arrangement between the responsible school authorities and the regional officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power for securing that sufficient quantities of fuel are available at the schools. As regards the second part of the Question, the use of school premises out of school hours is a matter for local arrangement: so far as my department is concerned, there would be no objection to children being allowed to remain at their school under supervision after school hours.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman be positive rather than negative in this matter? He says that the Department has no objection, but would he not make recommendations, especially in those areas where the absence of accommodation has imposed hardship on the children?

Mr. Butler: Local education authorities are responsible for the administration of education in their areas with my help and advice. I cannot go any further.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department contributes to local authorities towards the education of children, cannot


he take some steps to prevent the recurrence of what happened in Manchester last week when about 30 schools were closed because there was no heat, although the schools are within two or three miles of pits producing coal?

Mr. Butler: We give all the help we can, but I am confident that local authorities, particularly the ones to which the hon. Member refers, are competent to deal with their own affairs in the best way possible.

Employment (Training Schemes)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to work out joint schemes of training with industry and agriculture; what changes in secondary school curricula are contemplated pending the revision of nomenclature and abolition of fees in secondary schools on 1st April; and what arrangements he is making to relate choice of employment more closely to the work of schools and education authorities.

Mr. Butler: As this Question raises three separate issues and the answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lindsay: Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to a transference of the functions of juvenile employment from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Education, in view of the new Act?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friends the Ministers concerned and I have taken steps to establish a committee to look into a comprehensive juvenile employment service, and the whole question is under consideration. I hope the results will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lindsay: Will a statement be made?

Mr. Butler: When we are ready I shall have to make a statement on this important subject.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Scottish Education Department included?

Mr. Butler: I referred to my colleagues the Ministers concerned, and one is the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the Question, officers of my Department, in conjunction with those of the Ministry

of Labour and National Service, the Board of Trade and the Scottish Education Department, are engaged in a series of conferences with employers' and workers' organisations in a wide range of industries as to the recruitment and training of juvenile workers. Matters relating to training for agriculture are dealt with by two committees, one appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and myself, to advise on all aspects of agricultural education to be provided by local education authorities, and the other appointed by my right hon. Friend to consider the character and extent of the need for higher agricultural education. Both these committees include representatives of employers and workers. As regards the second part of the Question, I propose to issue shortly general guidance for the use of authorities and others on the aims of the different types of secondary schools.

As regards the third part of the Question:—Following a meeting which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I had with representatives of the associations of local education authorities in England and Wales and Scotland, a committee has been set up to consider the measures necessary to establish a comprehensive juvenile employment service.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Emergency Hutments

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that under Circular No. 134–44 issued by his Department and dated 4th October, 1944, local authorities are making offers of compensation of £1 per annum per site upon which temporary houses are being erected; and will he take steps to see that this injustice is discontinued forthwith.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Compensation in cases of requisitioning for emergency hutments falls to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (1a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and in the event of disagreement as to the amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to refer the matter to the general claims tribunal for determination.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Are local authorities compelled to acquire the land that they require? Why is there a distinction be-


tween temporary houses and permanent houses?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is under a considerable misapprehension. Land can be acquired or leased either for permanent or temporary houses. The facts set out in his Question relate to the emergency hutments, which are not to last for more than a year or two.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that land being used for allotments and other cultivated land is being requisitioned for temporary housing by his Department without opportunity being given to gather crops or produce; and whether he will, wherever possible, give adequate notice before taking possession.

Mr. Willink: Local authorities have already been instructed to give the fullest possible notice to allotment-holders of their intention to requisition sites for emergency hutments which are in use for allotments. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case of difficulty he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Silkin: Is the Minister not aware I have already given him particulars?

Mr. Willink: They have not come to my notice yet, but I will certainly look into them.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Why cannot the Minister be more definite and say there must be 12 months' notice at least, as is the case for smallholders?

Mr. Willink: That would be quite impossible in the case of these emergency hutments, which are needed in areas of great devastation.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that allotments will not be taken, if he can possibly get an alternative site?

Mr. Willink: This Question applies entirely to the requisitioning of land for emergency hutments, which only arises in a few closely built-up, and heavily devastated areas.

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Health why his Ministry has refused the application of the Stepney Borough Council for permission to dry out temporary hutments before occupation.

Mr. Willink: I regret there has been some misunderstanding in this matter. The borough council have now been given the necessary permission.

Temporary Houses (Allocation)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether all the local authorities requiring emergency prefabricated bungalows have yet lodged their requirements with his Department; the total number so far requested; and the total number allocated.

Mr. Willink: In England and Wales, 102,304 temporary houses have so far been allocated to 471 local authorities, who applied for 156,120. Further requests for allocations are expected as the smaller local authorities have only recently been invited to apply.

Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say if all these local authorities have the land ready for these houses, or are they likely to be without sites when the houses are ready?

Mr. Willink: Of course all the sites are not ready for all the temporary houses, but I am glad to say that progress is good.

Sir I. Albery: Can the Minister say what proportions of the allocations have been made to rural district councils?

Mr. Willink: These allocations are mostly to the urban authorities. The rural authorities, except for very few, fall within the more recent invitation.

Mr. McNeil: Have these local authority programmes been placed on the basis of a £600 bungalow, and what will the Minister do about the programme where the price exceeds that figure?

Mr. Summers: What proportion did the allocation bear to the numbers for which application was made?

Mr. Willink: I gave the total figures, which were about 102,000 allocated as against about 156,000 applied for, but the allocations are not in that proportion everywhere. I had to decide in each case whether the application was excessive. In some cases they had to be cut down; in others the allocations were exactly the numbers asked for.

DISABLED PERSONS (ASSISTANCE)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased cost of living which is bearing hardly on those of slender means, he will make arrangements whereby disabled persons unable to earn a livelihood and who have not reached pensionable age, are granted an allowance from the State which will provide them with the necessities of life.

Mr. Willink: A disabled person whose resources are insufficient to provide him with the necessities of life can obtain assistance from the public assistance authority. Under the proposals contained in the White Paper on Social Insurance the duty of providing financial assistance for all classes of persons on proof of need will rest on the Assistance Board.

Dr. Little: Is not this a matter demanding immediate attention and not one for the Assistance Board? I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to go thoroughly into the matter with a view to making sorely needed provision for these helpless persons, and not throw them back on to public assistance.

LONDON BOROUGHS (BOUNDARIES AND FUNCTIONS)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Health the names of the members and the terms of reference of the special body foreshadowed in Cmd. Paper 6579, which is to be set up as a matter of urgency to inquire into borough boundaries and functions within the county of London.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I propose to await discussion of the White Paper before taking steps for the institution of this inquiry.

Captain Duncan: Does not the Minister realise that the White Paper itself says that this is a matter of urgency?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, but the White Paper indicates also that this House should have an opportunity of discussing the proposals.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHARTER)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if consideration has been given to the action that is required over the renewal of the B.B.C.'s Charter; and can he make a statement.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter is under examination but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Graham White: Is it proposed to hold an inquiry into the renewal of the Charter, as was done when the Charter was last renewed?

Mr. Attlee: No decision has been come to on that matter. We have the Ullswater Committee's conclusions before us.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not a fact that the renewal has to take place next year, and does that not make the matter one of urgency? If we are to conduct this on a democratic basis, could not some committee be set up to take evidence from representative organisations and to start public discussion?

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter for consideration. We are going into it, but a great many things are pressing this year, besides those for next year.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that during war time the control is vested in the Ministry of Information, may I ask whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Ministry of Information Vote?

Mr. Attlee: That is hardly a question for me. My hon. Friend will no doubt see whether there are opportunities for raising it on a Supply day.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give a pledge not to renew the Charter of the B.B.C. unless they abolish that appalling feature known as the Brains Trust?

SERVICE PERSONNEL (HOME LEAVE)

Mr. A. Bevan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a full statement of the principles governing home leave in the different theatres of war, in order to relieve the anxiety of relatives, make the position clear to the Services and so reduce the volume of inquiries made to Members of Parliament on the subject.

Mr. Attlee: The principles governing the scheme for leave from distant theatres were set out in the statements made by the Prime Minister on 17th November


and by the Secretary of State for War in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on 5th December. It was then made clear that the application of these principles in the various commands is a matter for the commanders-in-chief concerned. This will differ to some extent according to the varying local conditions which may change from time to time as a result of operational and other circumstances. If individuals are in doubt about the arrangements in force in their commands, they should make inquiries through their commanding officers in the normal way.

Mr. Bevan: Does that reply do anything to remove the very great confusion which now exists? We receive inquiries from abroad and from the relatives of Service men, and we refer them to the answers which we have received in this House, but so many modifications are made by the commanders on the spot that our answers are made to look complete nonsense to the soldiers themselves. Would the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade commanders to act more in conformity with the principles established here, and not depart from them so much as they have done?

Mr. Attlee: I will see the Secretary of State for War and find out whether in the various commands the conditions can be brought clearly before the men, but it is best that they should make their inquiries there.

Sir Irving Albery: Is the Minister not aware that considerable dissatisfaction arises because of the fact that the troops are given to understand that there will be leave after certain periods, such as every six months, but that the allocations made to the units do not at all bear that out, and that leads to dissatisfaction?

Mr. Attlee: I do not know about that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Fertilisers

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the need to use home-produced fertiliser substitutes for imported fertilisers, is he yet in a posi-

tion to state the results of his investigations as to methods of using domestic sewage sludge compost with straw and waste.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Sewage sludges, whether used alone or composted with other materials, have been shown to have value as fertilisers. This value varies widely with the type of sludge, and the soil and crop to which it is applied. Research on this problem is being actively continued and the results are made known to the appropriate technical officers whose duty it is to advise in specific cases.

Lady Apsley: Is there not a committee dealing with this subject; and has it reported yet?

Mr. Hudson: Its proposals are made known to the appropriate authorities from time to time.

County War Executive Committees (Continuance)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a decision has been reached as to whether the county war agricultural executive committees are to be continued after the war-time production of food supplies has been completed.

Mr. Hudson: No decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that most of the organisations associated with agriculture have expressed their opinions, is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot make a statement? Is he waiting for the Government's long-term policy?

Smallholdings (Ex-Servicemen)

Major Leighton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the scheme for the provision of smallholdings by county councils can now be re-started and preference be given to applicants who are ex-Servicemen.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on 13th December last.

Major Leighton: Does the Minister realise that there are at present many ex-Servicemen who are fully equipped with the necessary capital? Could not arrangements be made or suggestions conveyed


to the county councils who have smallholdings that they should give ex-Servicemen a preference?

Mr. Hudson: The County Councils' Association have the matter under consideration. If they ask us for an interview, we shall, no doubt, be very glad to grant it.

Major Leighton: Will not the Minister ask them?

Women's Land Army

Sir T. Cook: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications for W.L.A. labour in the country of Norfolk, in excess of supply, with particular reference to dairy work.

Mr. Hudson: On 27th January, the Women's Land Army had on its books 59 unfilled vacancies in the county of Norfolk. Of these 44 were vacancies for milkers.

Sir T. Cook: Is there any chance of filling up those vacancies?

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to fill the vacancies in the W.L.A. caused by members leaving the Service.

Mr. Hudson: Restrictions hitherto placed on the recruitment of volunteers for the W.L.A. in certain industrial areas have recently been removed and publicity has been given to the need of the Land Army for new members. All suitable volunteers are being accepted, but the rate of intake is insufficient to counterbalance wastage. I am considering, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, what further steps can be taken to stimulate recruitment.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider increasing the basic rate of pay in order to induce these girls to join the Land Army?

Mr. Hudson: That is not my responsibility.

County War Executive Committee Officers (Retention)

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is able to indicate the post-war position of agricultural war executive committee officers; whether

there is to be any basis of retention; and what opportunities there are likely to be for existing personnel to continue the work as a career.

Mr. Hudson: The National Advisory Service offers the prospect of a career not only to those officers who are entitled under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1944 to transfer to the Ministry's staff, but to any other officers who possess the necessary technical qualifications. The position of the other officers of committees will depend on the extent of the various functions which may continue to be exercised by county war agricultural executive committees after the war and the duration of some of those functions.

Mr. Granville: Would it not help these officers if the Minister could tell them whether there will be any county agricultural committees after the war?

Fordson Tractors (Yorkshire)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the difficulty farmers in Yorkshire are experiencing in their efforts to obtain Ford-son tractors; and whether he will take the necessary steps to augment the distribution to this county.

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware of any special difficulty in Yorkshire. All counties have outstanding applications for Fordson tractors and supplies are allotted in proportion to these. Yorkshire has thus had equal treatment with other counties.

Mr. Turton: Is there a great shortage of Fordson tractors for this work, or is it true that there is a great surplus?

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware of any surplus.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Statutory Rules and Orders

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Health the grounds of urgency under which it was decided to certify, under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, the National Health Insurance Emergency Additional Benefits Amendment Regulations, 1944 (S.R. & O. No. 1479 of 1944).

Mr. Willink: The regulations to which my hon. Friend refers were needed because, owing to war conditions, it has not been possible to proceed with the valuations of approved societies' assets and liabilities, which have to be made before new schemes of additional benefits can be authorised, and it was accordingly necessary to make provision to allow of the extension of the additional benefit schemes already in force. This was urgent because additional benefit schemes covering about four hundred thousand insured persons would otherwise have come to an end on 31st December, 1944.

Mr. Etherton: asked the Minister of Health the grounds of urgency under which it was decided to certify, under Section 2 of the Rules of Publication Act, the National Health Insurance Unclaimed Proceeds of Stamp Sales Amendment Regulations, 1944 (S.R. & O., No. 1469, of 1944).

Mr. Willink: The regulations to which my hon. Friend refers were needed in order that additional funds should be made available to meet the cost of medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts. This was urgent because, owing to increases in the cost of medical benefit due to war conditions, the funds available would have been insufficient to meet the whole of the charges for the year ended 31st December, 1944.

Mr. Etherton: Could this matter not have been foreseen, and the normal procedure followed?

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Health the grounds of urgency under which it was decided to certify, under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, the National Health Insurance Arrears Amendment Regulations, 1944 (S.R. & O., No. 1466, of 1944).

Mr. Willink: The regulations to which my hon. Friend refers extend the provisions of earlier regulations to the calculation of arrears for the contribution year ended 2nd July, 1944. This was urgent because the arrears for that year affect the rate of benefit payable to insured persons during the benefit year which began on 1st January, 1945.

Mr. Etherton: Is this not another matter which could have been foreseen, and where no urgency need have existed? If

a little forethought had been exercised, could not the normal procedure have been followed?

Insurance Chemists (Prescriptions)

Mr. Manning: asked the Minister of Health whether an insurance chemist is required by existing regulations to supply with reasonable promptness to any person who presents an order for drugs or appliances on a prescription form provided by an insurance committee for the purpose and signed by an insurance medical practitioner, or his deputy, such drugs or appliances as are so ordered.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Manning: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this up with Messrs. Boots, who are refusing to supply certain appliances and drugs ordered on the pretext that they are of enemy manufacture or origin; and will he deal with the cases of Messrs. Boots in several counties of this country, that have already been put before him?

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice the particular aspect of the matter he has in mind, I will certainly look into it.

Nurses Act (Regulations)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health in view of the further information which has been sent to him, whether he will, in order to remove an injustice, introduce legislation to amend Regulation 19 of the Nurses Act, 1943.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I do not accept the suggestion that there is any injustice.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the details of this matter again re-examined, and remove what is believed to be a glaring injustice?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. My hon. Friend asked me a question about this two or three months ago, and I looked into it then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to state the Business for next week?

Mr. Attlee: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday—Further consideration of the Wages Councils Bill; Committee and


remaining stages of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill; and Committee stage of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Wednesday—Second Reading of the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday—Committee and, if agreeable to the House, the remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill and the Local Authorities Loans Bill; Second Reading of the Police (His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary) Bill; and, if there is time, further progress will be made with the Road Transport Lighting (Cycles) Bill [Lords].
Friday—Second Reading of the Compensation of Displaced Officers (War Service) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Second Reading of the Nurses Bill [Lords] and of the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Bill [Lords], which are expected to be received from another place to-day; Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Police (His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary) Bill is not in the hands of Members or in the Vote Office yet? Will he expedite it, as no one knows what is in the Bill?

Mr. Attlee: It was hoped to have presented it to-day. It will be presented to-morrow.

Mr. Edgar Granville: When are we likely to get a Second Reading of the Water Bill, which was recently introduced in this House?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid there is not a date I can give the hon. Member.

Mr. McNeil: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to indicate when we may expect the Scottish Education Bill?

Mr. Attlee: I think very shortly, but I cannot give an exact date.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the opportunity, which I think was half promised, for a discussion of the new Burnham scales; and can we be sure that such a discussion will be in time to influence the Minister, before he makes his final decision?

Mr. Attlee: We will endeavour to make arrangements for an opportunity, but as the hon. Member is aware these scales have not necessarily to come before the House. There is no particular machinery for that, but we will try to find an opportunity, in order that the House may have a discussion before the Minister reaches his final decision.

Mr. A. Bevan: It was stated the other day that an opportunity would be given to the House to have a full Debate on the very important pronouncement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the establishment of corporations to finance capital works after the war. Could my right hon. Friend give early consideration to a Debate on that subject?

Mr. Attlee: It has been noted and will be kept in mind.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the very great demands now being made upon the time of the House, and the large number of very important subjects there are to be discussed—which apparently we are not able to discuss—will by right hon. Friend give consideration to sitting on Mondays?

Mr. Attlee: We hope to arrange a time.

Mr. Graham White: Is it still the intention of the Government to proceed with the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the decision of the Amalgamated Engineering Union to call a national conference on redundancy, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider giving the House an opportunity to discuss that very important matter?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend will find that there will be an opportunity for that.

Sir W. Smithers: Can my right hon. Friend say, approximately, when we are to get the National Insurance Bill before the House?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I am dealing with next week's Business.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS

Mr. Key: Mr. Key: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the repair of bombed houses in London, and move a Resolution.

AIR TRAINING CORPS

Mr. Touche: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the future of the Air Training Corps, and move a Resolution.

RURAL AMENITIES

Mr. Edgar Granville: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of rural amenities, and move a Resolution.

DEMOBILISATION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to demobilisation and re-employment, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL NAVY (POST-WAR RESPONSIBILITIES)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the post-war responsibilities of the Royal Navy, and move a Resolution.

A.T.S. (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. De la Bère: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall raise the question of the overseas service of the A.T.S., and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (DOMINIONS)

Major York: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the contribution made by the Dominions to the Royal Air Force, and move a Resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Major Mott-Radclyffe.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend, I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, he will call attention to the future of the Territorial Association—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: It is only on a Private Member's Motion that that can be done. It cannot be done now. Mr. Kendall.

MERCHANT NAVY (EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS)

Mr. Kendall: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall raise the question of conditions of employment in the Merchant Navy, and move a Resolution.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide for suspending the operation of certain statutes of limitation in relation to proceedings affecting persons who have been enemies or have been detained in enemy territory."—[Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled "An Act to exclude county and district nursing associations and other similar organizations from the operation of Part II of the Nurses Act, 1943, and Part II of the Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1943."—[Nurses Bill [Lords].

LIMITATION (ENEMIES AND WAR PRISONERS) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February.

NURSES BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February.

PRIVATE BILL (STANDING ORDERS)

Report from the Select Committee, with an Appendix, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 30.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 30.]

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of wages councils, and otherwise for the regulation of the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers in certain circumstances, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Labour and National Service in carrying the said Act into effect and any expenses authorised by that Minister with the consent of the Treasury to be incurred by a wages council, a commission of inquiry or a central co-ordinating committee established or set up thereunder.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

12.13 p.m.

Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Making of wages council orders.)

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, at the beginning, insert "a clear indication of."
This Clause deals with the objections which may be made to the formation of a wages council, and the field covered by this machinery for dealing with wages is a much larger field than has hitherto been covered under the Trade Boards Act. It therefore becomes increasingly important that the proper facilities should be available to those who may have objections to make. Sub-section (2) of this Clause, as drafted, requires that an objector shall, first of all, state the specific grounds of his objection, and secondly
omissions, additions or modifications asked for.
As drafted, it would seem that the objector could have his objection invalidated, if the wording which he proposed to sub-


stitute did not technically comply with the Bill. The object of these additional words is to make sure that objectors do not have their objections invalidated on purely technical and drafting grounds. The intention is that, if a clear indication that the change is needed is, in fact, submitted, that should be sufficient for the purpose.

12.15 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The wording I have followed in this Clause is precisely the wording that has been in operation in all these wages Bills since 1909. It is absolutely essential, if a statement is put in objecting to a wages council, that it should be in writing and set forth what it is to which objection is taken. Apart from that I think the hon. Member will agree that "a clear indication of" would be very bad English, very bad drafting, and would not ensure what the Minister is entitled to have if he is to determine whether an objection is valid. The hon. Member said that if an objection was submitted in a bad form no notice would be taken of it. That has never been the case. During the whole time that trades boards have been in operation we have never ruled out anything because it was not absolutely in precise form. I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, because the stipulation that the statement should be made in writing and give the actual "omissions, additions or modifications" asked for is absolutely essential, first for the commission of inquiry, and, secondly in case the Order subsequently made has to be defended in this House.

Mr. Summers: I understand the Minister to say that an objection which might technically be invalid would nevertheless be considered, in the spirit in which it was submitted, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, leave out "appearing to him to be," and insert "so."
This Amendment also deals with the question of the validity of objections. One fears that there might be a conflict of opinion on whether an objection was valid or otherwise because doubt might exist about whether the person putting forward the objection was or was not affected.

A person quite a long distance from the immediate object of the inquiry might justifiably consider himself to be affected, but as the Clause stands the decision whether he is to be properly regarded as affected rests solely with the Minister. It cannot be challenged by the objector, since it depends upon the words "if it appears to the Minister." The effect of my Amendment, if adopted, would be to make the Sub-section read:
shall consider any such objection made by or on behalf of any person so affected.
The question whether an objection was or was not valid would be a question of fact which, if necessary, could be challenged at law. The grounds for my Amendment are that it would give an additional assurance to an objector.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The real question here was that put by my hon. Friend towards the end of his speech, as to whether a right of challenge in the courts is really required, or whether, as I suggest, it is a matter for this House. The Minister will, of course, consider the objection and must make up his mind whether the objector is affected or not. If he decides that the objector is not affected and therefore rules out his objection that is not the end of the matter, because the Order which the Minister makes is one which can be annulled in this House. If the Minister says in this House: "I have not considered that objection, I did not think that the objector had any locus standi and that his objection was relevant," and the House takes the view that the Minister was wrong, the Minister will be put in a serious difficulty and will have to answer to the House. The question for this Committee is, Is that a House of Commons matter, or is it a matter that ought to be litigated in a court of law? It think it is essentially a matter for this House, because it is an administrative matter. It is a matter for the Minister, who has the whole picture in his mind and can decide the status of the person who wishes to object. I wish to assure my hon. Friend that it is not from any desire either to evade the decision or evade the liability for answering for that decision, that I resist his Amendment, but that I do so because I suggest that it is essentially an administrative and Parliamentary matter for which the Minister should answer here.

Lieut. Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not at all agree with my hon. and learned Friend in the argument which he has just submitted. He agrees that the issue is the determination of a question of fact, and I venture to submit that Parliament has neither the time nor the facilities for determining minor issues of this description. That is pre-eminently the duty and the responsibility of our justiciary. To burden Parliament with the determination of minor issues concerning whether or not the administration has been correctly carried out in accordance with the law would make the working of the machinery of government quite impossible. It is a matter for the courts, and I hope sincerely that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider this matter and allow it to go through the proper, normal and traditional channels, which are the courts of law.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, leave out "in his opinion."
The arguments which I brought forward in support of the previous Amendment are in large measure applicable to this one also, because the question whether modifications which the Minister may make in the recommendations submitted to him on the grounds that they are unimportant is, as the wording of the Clause stands, to be judged solely by him. He is to be the judge of whether they are unimportant. This again is, I submit, a question of fact, which should not depend solely on the decision of the Minister, subject to the power of Parliament to challenge the wisdom of his decision. A wider issue is really involved. If the Minister is to be allowed to have this discretionary power and the right to decide for himself, on the ground that Parliament can always challenge him, there would appear to be no limit at all to the extent to which discretionary powers may properly be accorded. I always understood that to give discretionary powers to a Minister which cannot be challenged in the courts was a procedure which must be carefully safeguarded if things are not to get completely out of hand. I do not wish to repeat my argument, but I submit that this point should not be lightly passed over, nor should Parliament be regarded as an adequate safeguard in all cases where the Minister is given discretionary powers.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend himself has said that the issues here resemble those raised by the last Amendment, and therefore, like him, I shall refrain from repeating what I said, and shall try to confine what I have to say to some differences which in my opinion strengthen the Government in resisting this Amendment. The issue here is whether the Minister is to decide according to his opinion—that is, applying his knowledge and his judgment—whether a matter is important enough to go through once again the procedure laid down in the Bill or whether he can make an amendment himself. That is the point which I should Like my hon. Friend to remember. Here it is not a question of the Minister deciding once and for all whether an Order is inter vires or anything of that kind, but whether he should repeat the procedure or should, in order to save time, say: "I consider that this Amendment does not introduce important alterations and therefore I shall make it myself." As I rather elaborated on the last Amendment, the same safeguards remain, namely, that Parliament can take the Minister to task.
I should face up to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks). This is definitely a question that can only be important on the basis that the Minister is really abusing his powers. Unless the Minister abuse his powers there is nothing in the point at all, and therefore I consider that the question whether a Minister should have acted in that way is really a House of Commons' point. That is my view, and my hon. and gallant Friend disagrees with it, but I submit it for the consideration of this Committee. I have one word to say on the wider issue which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) sought to tack on. This is not the sort of point which was criticised in, for example, the Donoughmore Report as ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. The case there was where a Minister makes regulations and the vires of the regulations were not challengeable in the courts. This is not a matter of that kind. No power of subsidiary legislation is involved here. It is simply a question of whether the Minister responsible to Parliament for the proper administration of the Act is to be entitled to decide whether he must lay a


fresh draft or whether he can make minor amendments. That, I submit, is properly a matter for him.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Summers: Might I ask what is the broad approach of the Minister to the question of what is, or is not, important? Is a penny an hour an important or unimportant qualification in the recommendation? One would have felt happier if some idea could be given of the type of modification, or change, which would clearly be regarded as important.

Mr. Bevin: Anything that has to do with rates or conditions will always be regarded by the Minister as important. One always gets minor things in a draft, or recommendation, which needs adjustment in order to make it work. Apart from that, I can assure my hon. Friend that anything that touches the recommendation fundamentally is always regarded as important.

Mr. Summers: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(General Provisions as to wages councils.)

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, after "and," to insert:
shall make a report upon the matter to the Minister or, as the case may be, to that department, and a wages council.
It will be seen that under the Bill, we can refer matters to the wages council, but there is no stipulation that they shall report to anybody. Quite possibly they will, but I think it will make the position clearer if there is the stipulation that wages councils should report to the Minister concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Geoffrey Mander: The Clause says:
A wages council shall consider, as occasion requires, any matter referred to it by the Minister or any government department with reference to the industrial conditions prevailing. …

I ask the Minister whether "any matter" would include such a question as the setting up of joint machinery for appeals against measures of a disciplinary nature. Such machinery does exist in certain factories at the present time, but there is always the fear of victimisation, that a man may be dismissed because the employer does not like his political opinion, or because he takes too big a part in trade union matters. It is desirable to have a safeguard against that sort of thing, where possible. Some firms have done it by setting up a joint tribunal with whom the final decision rests as to whether a man shall be dismissed or not, thereby taking it out of the hands of the employer.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This speech seems to be on lines which are certainly out of Order.

Sir G. Mander: I am asking the Minister whether the words "any matter" include a situation such as I am now describing, and I was venturing to point out that joint tribunals are already working very successfully.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask his question, but I cannot allow him to build up a case with arguments, and to give a series of pictures.

Sir G. Mander: Perhaps my right hon Friend the Minister appreciates the point I am putting that the words "any matter" cover, or might cover, a very wide ground and all sorts of industrial matters. I want to ask whether the particular point I have made, would come within the meaning of these words. It would be for the Minister to decide whether to refer it or not, and I would like to know whether, if the Minister did so decide, he would put forward a matter of this kind.

Mr. Summers: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him to bear in mind that many of us take a contrary view to that which has just been expressed?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the question is certainly out of Order.

Mr. Naylor: Will the Minister give the Committee some indication of what these matters might be?

Sir G. Mander: Before the Minister replies, may I ask—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue the subject.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I ask the Minister a question? It seems to me that this is the Clause on which the question of training may arise. Clause 14 refers specifically to apprenticeship, but as something like two-thirds of the number of young workers in industry to-day undergo no apprenticeship at all, I wonder whether this is a Clause under which a training scheme could be worked out.

Mr. Bevin: With regard to the last question, we can certainly refer training schemes for the industry to the wages council, or inquiries into the working or health conditions of the industry, or anything of that character. Those are matters which I instanced in my Second Reading speech. I referred to the case of the cutlery trade in Sheffield; we have asked the trade board, for the sake of post-war development and better conditions in the industry, to investigate the matter. I hope that answers my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). With regard to the question of what shall be set up under a wages council, all those things are matters for the wages council alone, and under this Clause, a Minister cannot refer such things to the council.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(General provisions as to commissions of inquiry.)

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 9, line 25, after "writing," to insert:
or orally if the commission so decides.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee if the next Amendment stand-in my name—in page 9, line 27, after "thereof," to insert:
and may if it thinks fit cause local inquiry to be made.
—could be considered along with this one, as the two Amendments really hang together.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was not proposing to select the following Amendment, because I thought it was covered by the first one. If the Committee agree, there will be no objection to discussing the two together.

Mr. Summers: These Amendments desire to give greater variety of treatment and action by the commission, so that if it is desired to have representations made orally, or by means of local inquiry, it would be within their province so to arrange matters that every opportunity should be given for views to be heard which would be relevant to the case.

Captain Duncan: These commissions of inquiry would probably have to deal with cases on a national basis, but there may be cases in which local conditions may be different. These two points which my hon. Friend has put forward cover both the local conditions and the question that there should be a proper hearing, with oral evidence as well as evidence in writing. Both points seem to be eminently reasonable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, even if he cannot agree with the actual wording of the Amendments, will allow the idea to be put into practice.

Mr. Bevin: With regard to the first Amendment, it seeks to allow the commission to invite objections not in writing. That would enable anybody to come before the commission without there being any case in writing before them. That I could not accept. That point was gone into very fully on the Catering Wages Bill, and the House has always turned down such a course. If somebody wants to come before a commission to object, then, what they are objecting to, ought to be put in writing in the first place. With regard to the second Amendment, the point it wishes to make is already covered in the Bill, because it is open to the commission, when they examine cases in writing, to say whether or not they will make local enquiries. In the actual Clause it is left to the commission to determine. A commission of inquiry would have power to hear oral evidence in support of an objection that had been submitted in writing. That is quite clear in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Summers: May I ask for a little elucidation? The Sub-section with which


we are dealing appears to me to affect considerations prior to the recommendations of the commission. The Minister, as I understood him, referred to objections to decisions that a commission has already reached, whereas this Sub-section precedes the formation of conclusions, and it is with the opportunity of giving oral evidence, or holding a local inquiry, before the recommendations are framed, and not with objections afterwards, that I, personally, am concerned.

Mr. Bevin: I think the case is quite clear. Sub-section (2) says:
… the commission shall make all such investigations as appear to it to be necessary and shall publish in the prescribed manner a notice stating the questions which it is its duty to consider by virtue of the reference and further stating that it will consider representations with respect thereto made to it in writing within such period as may be specified in the notice, not being less than forty days from the date of publication thereof; and it shall consider any representations made to it within that period and then make such further inquiries as it considers necessary.
First, it has to consider written applications. Then it has to consider representations, and one of the representations will be, I assume, that a man wants to be heard orally. It will consider all that, after which it will make any further investigation that is absolutely necessary. It is our intention to allow that to operate.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this? He has read out Sub-section (2), but there is nothing in it which gives power to a man to be heard orally. If there could be something in writing to that effect, I think it would be a protection to possible objectors.

Mr. Bevin: I will certainly look at it, although I feel convinced that the point is already covered.

Mr. Summers: As I have the Minister's assurance that he will look at the matter to make sure that the point is covered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to fix remuneration and holidays.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I want to raise on this Clause a matter of very great importance to the small business world. There is no proper safeguard for the many varieties of small traders, particularly in the distributive trades. The actual formation of the wages council is going to be in the hands of the Minister, but two representatives or more must represent trade organisations of employers, and two representatives or more must represent the trades unions. If one thinks of the distributive trade, the natural representation will be that of the large employers, because the small men have very few organisations between them.

The Deputy-Chairman: Will the hon. and learned Member please tell me where this arises under this Clause?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I will, certainly. The actual remedy under Clause 10 (3) refers to representations made by any organisation to the wages council concerned. It is of the utmost moment, in considering the point, to know who the representatives on the wages councils are to be. It is essential that representations should be allowed to be made in favour of those small people who, as far as this Bill is concerned, have no representation and no safeguard. My submission to you, Mr. Williams, is that it is of the utmost appositeness to this Clause, because the only remedy provided by the Bill for these small people is contained in the Clause. You must consider who the wages council are going to be, in relation to this Clause, in order to know the position of these small traders. The natural representation in the distributive trade is that of the large organisations concerned and the small men who are not organised may not have any representation at all. The Minister may tell us that he has some idea of safeguarding the small man's position. I do not think that the Committee ought to part with this Clause until we have had some explanation from him.
A council may well be made up of the large concerns, co-operative stores and so on, as representing the employers, and of the trades unions representing the employees in the large concerns. It is of


the utmost importance that the small man should be in a position to state his particular case. For example, the man who keeps a newspaper-tobacconist shop wants labour for two or three hours in the morning during the delivery of papers and for two or three hours in the evening for the same purpose. He does not provide the same sort of employment as the big stores, and if you have a wages council fixing a whole-time period at a definite wage it does not suit him and it is not fair. I am not suggesting that there should be two rates of payment for the same work, but the requirements of the small trader are limited and he ought to have an opportunity of stating his case for a consequent reduction of his liability.
I do not think that Sub-section (3) meets the point at all. Representations can be made to the wages council which may represent, as far as this Bill is concerned, just those people who are against the man concerned, but he has no rights whatever of being heard. I ask the Minister to consider this as a most important matter, and see whether some machinery cannot be provided, which will allow a man to give evidence and state his case before some tribunal, whether it be a special tribunal set up by the Minister or whether it be the wages council proposed under the Bill. It is of paramount importance to the small trader that he should not find himself in the position of having a tribunal consisting wholly or largely of those whose interests may be opposed to him, with no opportunity of stating his case and having the particular circumstances of his trade considered before an order is made. There are powers given in Sub-section (6) to deal with alterations but the powers of altering the Regulations can only satisfactorily be used if the tribunal considering the whole case is in possession of all the facts. I do not think that it is enough or at all fair to the small trader that he should be limited to making written representations. I should like an answer from the Minister.
As far as the small trader is concerned—and I have documentary evidence of it in my pocket—he regards this Bill as allowing big boss interests to judge his case on the tribunal, and the biggest boss of all is the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman broods so benevolently. I want the Minister to re-assure

these people that there will be some machinery by means of which the small trader can state his case. No one wants sweated labour, whether it be the small man or the large man, but everyone wants justice for the small man and to make certain that he is not put out of business because the regulations made for him by others with different interests do not take into consideration the particular difficulties with which he is faced.

Mr. Guy: Is the hon. and learned Member not aware that most if not all of the small traders and the smaller concerns are members of the local ratepayers' association or chamber of commerce and have, therefore, an opportunity of putting their views forward?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Many of the small traders are not members of any association, but even granting that they do belong to such associations, there is no guarantee under this Bill that such associations would be represented on the wages council. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because it enables me to make my point still clearer. The Psalmist's complaint against the wicked man was that God was not in all his thoughts. My complaint against the Minister in this case—which I hope he will prove to be wrong—is that the small trader has not been in any of his thoughts, in framing this Bill. I would ask the Committee to see that the Minister gives us some satisfactory assurance, so that the small trader is assured of being fairly dealt with after he is given an opportunity of stating his case fully to ensure that his case is considered and to guarantee that he will have fair play under the Bill while, at the same time, it is seen that, like everybody else, he must not in any way impose conditions which would amount to sweated labour. The actual work that is done and the skill of the particular worker ought to be taken into account. These things are vital to the issue, but I ask the Committee to see that the small man and the small business have fair play.

Mr. Bevin: My hon. and learned Friend has some wonderful similes to draw and he tells me that I brood over the Department. When this Bill has been passed, I hope that I shall get out of the brooding stage. He links me up with the Psalmist and various other things.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I linked the right hon. Gentleman up with the wicked man.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member are both getting far away from realities when they talk about the Psalmist on this Clause. I am not sure, even yet, whether the hon. and learned Member is quite in Order in raising this point.

Mr. Bevin: The Clause really covers the point about which my hon. and learned Friend has been expressing his fears. The first duty that I have to carry out, is to see that the wages council is representative. It will have to include people, I presume, from organisations or who represent the small man. I accept his view that the small man must not be permitted to get on as the result of sweated labour.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevin: I see that we are on common ground. Samuel Smiles may not be very widely read in the future. The Clause allows the wages council, not of necessity to fix one wage for all, but to fix a variety of wages according to the nature of the work or of the district. In the Road Haulage Wages Act, the wages board has the task of dealing with the road haulage plant in the country, in small towns and in the large towns. There are three or four grades fixed which apply under the orders, and the same thing applies, and will apply, to these orders. I understand that joint industrial councils which have been operating during the war have made a variety of arrangements, all of which can be incorporated. If my hon. and learned Friend thinks—and I know what he has in his mind—that the co-operative and multiple shops and the chain stores simply set down what everybody has to pay in some out-of-the-way place, I must tell him that that is not how the councils will work. They will take into account the conditions that are obtaining just as the Joint Industrial Councils do now. In the printing, building and a number of other trades, there is a whole system of graded wages, whether they apply to the country, the town or the big man or the little man. That is exactly how these councils are intended to work, and all the power to do that has been incorporated in Clause 10, and it is on that basis that the councils will he enabled to work. There will be flexibility under this Bill and the position

will not be as rigid as under the Trade Boards Act. The Wages Councils Bill gives the choice of fixing a minimum wage, to apply to, say, London, or to the Highlands. This provision allows a flexibility in dealing with the different districts throughout the country.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of providing machinery whereby it would he possible for small traders to be heard? Will he consider this before the Report stage?

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot add any other machinery. The wages council must take into consideration representations made to them.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: In writing?

Mr. Bevin: In writing. I cannot go back on that. If the representations are made in writing, they must then, as I said on the previous Clause, make all the necessary investigations. But the first complaint must be in writing: otherwise, they cannot do anything. That is the case with a Royal Commission or anything else.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Does that mean that, after the complaint has gone in, in writing, there will be a right, unless the complaint is a frivolous one, for the man to be heard?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, that is so.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Permits to infirm and incapacitated persons.)

Major York: I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, after "If," insert:
on receipt of an application by the employer or worker
This is a very simple point and it may be covered in some other part of the Bill, which I have not been able to discover. My hon. Friends and I wish to protect the older workers in rural areas, and to allow the employer, where the man is perhaps not very good with his pen, to make application to the wages council, in writing, for a permit, authorising his employment at a lower rate than the statutory minimum wage. The Amendment also


makes clear that in those areas which are far from the town where a wages council is likely to sit, the application can be made in writing, either by the employer or by the worker. This power may not be necessary for urban dwellers, but. I think it will be necessary for rural dwellers, particularly in winter weather.

Mr. Bevin: As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment is to enable an application for a permit to be made either by a worker or by his employer, if he is already employed. Under the scheme, as at present drafted, there is no provision for an application to be made, either by the employer or by the worker. All that is required is that the wages council must be satisfied as to the circumstances. I think there is a case for such provision; and, while I cannot accept the words, I will accept the principle, and try to find the right words between now and the Report stage.

Major York: In view of that satisfactory answer by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Computation of remuneration)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 8, after "1944," insert "or."
This Amendment anticipates a matter which is raised in a later Amendment, in the name of my right hon. Friend—in line 9, leave out from "1941," to "but," in line 12, and insert:
and except deductions made, either under an enactment or at the request, in writing, of the workers, in respect of contributions under a superannuation scheme or thrift scheme"—
which also cover the ground, I think, of the Amendment which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan)—in line 30, at end, insert:
(3) Any benefits or advantages so provided which in the opinion of the Wages Council should continue to be provided and be reckoned as payment of wages by the employer in lieu of cash, shall be recognised as legally provided notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Truck Acts, 1931 to 1940.

It would probably be convenient if I explained what it covers.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is to say, it covers four Amendments. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York) as well? I was given to understand that that might be covered by this Amendment, though I am not sure about that.

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment raises the same point as that of my right hon. Friend, but I am pretty sure that it raises the same point as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) has in mind.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then we had better consider the first three Amendments.

The Solicitor-General: The object of the two Government Amendments is to protect the position of non-statutory superannuation funds, provident funds, thrift schemes, and the like. It was thought that some doubts might be raised as to their position, and we wanted to make it perfectly clear. The effect of the two Government Amendments is to ensure that deductions made in a non-statutory scheme, at the request in writing of the worker, will not be regarded as deductions for the computation of remuneration. We have to be careful to put it in writing in order to protect a position which is raised by various well-known decisions of the House of Lords and other tribunals.

Mr. Summers: I appreciate the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, as one interprets his Amendment, the deductions which would be regarded still as part of the worker's remuneration are deductions in respect of contributions under a superannuation scheme or thrift scheme. Subsequent words are proposed to define "thrift." I submit that there are a number of very widespread practices, which would not be covered by the wording here proposed. I have in mind, for instance, a request made in writing by workers in many firms to deduct so much from their wages in respect of local hospital schemes—it may be a penny in the pound, or it may be threepence a week. The wording proposed, to define "thrift," would certainly not embrace schemes of


that kind. There are also practices, within my knowledge, under which a worker requests that deductions should be made from his wages as payments to a building society, with which possibly his employer is associated. It may even be that he likes to have his rent collected under such a method. I submit that, provided it is perfectly clear that this is undertaken at the request of the worker, in writing, without any pressure put on him, there should be no restriction on the practice of deducting through wages any such payments that the worker would like to make in that way and which the employer is willing to deduct.
The Amendment which I propose covers a much larger number of practices than is recommended by the Minister. I submit that there should be no limit to the proper deductions, and that if the worker is willing to have them dealt with in that way and the employer is willing to deal with them in that way, those two conditions should suffice. I hope that the Minister will not ask the Committee to accept the wording proposed by him, but will consider, subsequently if necessary, different wording, which will carry the practice still further, subject to the two conditions that I have mentioned.

The Solicitor-General: With regard to hospital contributions, Members on this Bench, like everyone else in the House, have the greatest sympathy, and nothing we have done is intended to show anything else. But we strongly believe that we must go carefully in this line of country. I do not want to go outside the Amendment, but I want to indicate what I have in mind: that is, that the principles of the Truck Acts, we firmly believe, are of very great importance, and nothing must be done to make any inroad into them. If I indicate to my hon. Friend what I have in mind, it may meet his point. We should consider, with regard to this Clause, the wording of Sub-section (3) and especially the words:
Where any benefits or advantages are provided in connection with any employment, by the employer or by some other person under arrangements with the employer, then, whether or not the benefits or advantages are authorised to be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash …
and to make it clear that in regard to matters which are really outside the contract of employment, such as the case where a company provide a special house,

or goods at cost, or cheap travel, which has nothing to do with the employment, and, therefore, nothing to do with the issue of the Truck Acts, we find words which will preserve that position; and, incidentally, we will look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised. If we reconsider that point, as we intend to do, and propose different words on the Report stage, I should have thought—I hope I am not going outside this Amendment—that that would meet the point my hon. Friend has in mind. I ask him to accept the Government's Amendment on our undertaking to look into the wider matters that he has suggested.

Captain Duncan: May I get it clear what the Solicitor-General is going to look into? The definition of a thrift scheme is:
an arrangement for providing money for holidays or for other purposes under which the worker is entitled to receive in cash sums equal to or greater than his aggregate contributions.
In a lot of these hospital schemes or nursing schemes people do not receive anything in cash; they receive free hospital treatment. It seems to me that hospital and nursing schemes are eminently suitable subjects for deductions, which the worker in many cases voluntarily allows the employer to make from his wages, and which the employer is willing to make. That seems an eminently desirable arrangement; and it is very desirable that, if it can be put into this Bill, that particular kind of case should be covered. The employer is willing to work the scheme, usually, for nothing, in the interests of the hospital or whatever the object happens to be, and, as I read the wording of the Solicitor-General's Amendment, such schemes would be outside the wording of this Bill because of the words "in cash." I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will look into that particular aspect of the matter.

1.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Would the learned Solicitor-General also look into a slightly different aspect of the same point? We have been referring to hospital savings schemes of one sort or another, but is not this actually the greatest blow the Government have yet struck at the Red Cross? Does it not make all the penny-a-week schemes illegal? I speak subject to correction, and


I am asking my hon. and learned Friend to look into the matter, but it looks to me as though, by the wording of this Clause, he has put upon the employer the responsibility of making up to the employee any contribution which the latter authorises the employer to deduct under a penny-a-week scheme. Obviously the employer will not do it. I shall be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend, who I am quite sure does not want to kill the Red Cross, at any rate at the present time, will kindly consider this particular point. There is one other thing. He referred to the emphasis which he is laying upon the provisions in the Truck Acts. Is he not, in effect, removing or repealing Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Truck Act, 1896?

Sir G. Mander: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will look sympathetically into the points that have been raised, because there is no doubt that it is a great convenience at the present time for employees to be able to have contributions to various schemes deducted by their employers. I have in mind such a scheme as contributions to a welfare fund, for recreation and all that sort of thing. Surely it is in the worker's interest that it should be possible to continue that? I hope my hon. and learned Friend will consider it sympathetically.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who have raised this point about deductions from wages will forgive me if I say that, so far as I understand this Bill, it will affect the distributive trades almost more than any other occupation. When hon. Gentlemen were speaking on this Amendment, I am sure they had in mind conditions of employment with which they are not very familiar. The well-organised employers, almost everywhere, whether engineering, coalmining, textiles or any of these large organisations, do not have much trouble about deductions from wages, but in regard to the thousand and one small employers, in the distributive and kindred trades, I think hon. Members would be astonished at what can happen there on occasions. Speaking with a little knowledge of the distributive trades, which employ somewhere about 2,000,000 persons in peace time, I would ask them to be good enough to allow the Minister's Amendment to be inserted in the Bill

because it would safeguard those people, I am sure, from some of the doubtful practices that have crept into some of the very minor trades in the past.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the Truck Acts because, whatever Parliament does, I hope it will not do anything in this Bill to upset the well established provisions of those Acts. We are all naturally very concerned about that. I hope, therefore, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander)—with which I have great sympathy—that no hon. Member will oppose the Amendment set forth by the Minister because of what might happen. The hon. Gentleman assumed, I think, that the employer would not induce his employees to do certain things. That might be the case in engineering, and the coal and textile industries, but it might not be the case in some of these smaller unorganised distributive and kindred trades, and therefore I support what the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do in his Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: May I say first that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies) for what he said just now and for his support. I feel, however, that my real duty here is to make clear what we desire to do, and I think, when I have done that, we shall find that the Committee is in general agreement. My hon. Friends are primarily concerned with the question of contributions to the Red Cross or hospital funds.

Mr. Summers: Yes.

The Solicitor-General: I think they are agreed. I am merely saying this to put it on one side, that certainly our Amendment covers the ordinary superannuation or thrift fund. With regard to the Red Cross or hospital funds, the answer I think to my hon. and gallant Friend's disquiet is that when one comes to consider the word "deduction," it must be given its strictly legal meaning, and it would certainly have been held under the Truck Acts, had the point arisen, that a contribution to the Red Cross or hospital funds, made voluntarily and at the request of the workman, would not be a deduction under the Truck Acts. That is why, really for the convenience of the Committee, I anticipated a little and brought


in Sub-section 3. The difficulty here, if my hon. Friends will follow me, is first of all the initial words:
Where any benefits or advantages are provided in connection with any employment. …
I should be disposed to advise or hold, if the matter came before me, that the benefit obtained from the Red Cross fund or the hospital fund was not a benefit or an advantage in connection with employment. A superannuation fund is different, and therefore we have dealt with it specifically—I could not give the same opinion there—but I should say the former were not, and therefore I think they are all right. However, I do not want there to be any doubt about it, as my hon. Friends have raised the point, and I will look into it.
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I would like to deal with the other point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) who referred to the first three Sections of the Truck Act of 1896. They are the sections which made elaborate provision for deductions in respect of fines and damaged goods and materials provided with regard to work. As the Bill stands, and as I want it to stand, that position is not altered at all. The whole of the provisions of the Truck Act stand as they are, and where that procedure is established, with all the safeguards that the Truck Act introduces, that position will still be maintained.
I hope I have answered the points because I feel that the whole of the Committee are at one here, that on the one hand we want to protect the principle—it is now 113 years since the first Truck Act was passed, and we are certainly not going back on the principle of wages being paid in the current coin of the Realm; on the other hand, I think we have covered the matters which all my hon. Friends have in mind. However, I will certainly look again at the question to see that the hospitals fund and the like are clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton suggested—

Sir G. Mander: And a works welfare fund—a recreation fund?

The Solicitor-General: It is rather difficult, as my hon. Friend will see, to say offhand because the fund may be consti-

tuted in different ways, but I will look into that. I am glad my hon. Friend has introduced it, so that it will be before us in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will also look into the wider point in Sub-section (3) which I mentioned in my earlier speech. I hope we are now agreed on the principles we want to see in this Clause, and I shall do my best with the draftsman to see that they are carried in the ultimate draft.

Mr. Summers: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman concludes, may I ask if he will look, not only at payments to charities and welfare funds, but at payments to building societies, or even the rent of an adjacent house owned by the company, to see whether that would be a proper case for deduction if instructed by the workmen to make it?

The Solicitor-General: I want to make it clear that I think there is a dividing line here. I hoped that I had made it clear. I am quite prepared to look into the protection of the sort of thing I have mentioned, that is, that when houses at cheap rents are provided by the employer, or where the employer gives cheap travelling facilities, or where he gives goods at cost, which are outside the contract of employment and bona fide removed from it, then of course no one would want the workman to get his cheaper house or cheaper travel, and then come back at the employer later on and say, "You have to pay me increased wages because you gave me cheaper travel." We all want to safeguard those because they are useful things, but I do not want my hon. Friends to misunderstand me. If it is made a condition of employment that the benefit will be given to the workman otherwise than in cash, then we are not giving way an inch, we must maintain the Truck Act position.

Major York: On a point of Order. Major Milner. Seeing that the remarks of the learned Solicitor-General go very much wider than the Amendments we are discussing, and include the principles embodied in the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I am wondering whether it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I were to state my case on this Amendment?

The Chairman (Major Milner): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would


explain his Amendment very shortly when we reach it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 9, leave out from "1941," to "but," in line 12, and insert:
and except deductions made, either under an enactment or at the request, in writing, of the worker, in respect of contributions under a superannuation scheme or thrift scheme."—[Mr. Bevin.]

Major York: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, at end, insert:
and provided that all deductions which are the subject of any local, industrial or trade custom shall be allowed as deductions from remuneration as defined in this Section.
The last discussion came very near to the points which I have in mind, and what the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friends and myself is designed to do is to protect the interests of the agricultural, estate, and rural workers generally as compared with urban workers. I find it difficult to understand how far Subsection (2) of this Clause safeguards those customary deductions from pay and those lower rates of pay which are the common practice in rural areas. We have put down this Amendment to make quite sure that people who manage estates—land agents and so forth—should know exactly where they stand, and we do not want these deductions, to become illegal practices under this Bill.
1.30 p.m.
I do not think I need fully develop the case I had in mind, because the Solicitor-General has dealt with it, but I would point out to him and the Minister of Labour that the factors which govern living conditions in rural areas are quite different from those which govern conditions in towns. One point I particularly wish to refer to, which seems to me to be outside the possibility of decision by the wages council, is where workers on agricultural estates are paid at a lower basic rate than similar workers, particularly builders, masons and plumbers and the like. There is a very strong point here in that whereas, in the trades I have mentioned, workers in urban areas are subject to wet time and changing jobs, carpenters on estates, for instance, have complete security for their jobs so long as they wish to retain them, provided they are good workmen. They are paid for a

full 52-week year, for a five-day or six-day week, regardless of whether the weather is wet or fine, and so far as I can see, the wages council will have to make a complete exception in order that this category might continue with the contract which it has at the present time.
Supposing a wages council is set up for the building trade generally, the number of estate workers is very limited, indeed, and I understand that very few are actually members of a trade union. That being so, their interests are unlikely to be presented to the wages council at all, and I feel that this Clause would eliminate local customs, which are of great value in the local wage structure and are of some minor importance in good estate management because they effect a small economy. What this Amendment tries to do is to make it obligatory on the wages council to allow as local deductions items such as low house rent. I thought I understood the Solicitor-General to say that deductions for house rent would not be included among the deductions disallowed, but I am not quite clear and perhaps he will explain the matter further later. I want to emphasise this because of the effect it might have on farm and rural estate workers and so on if that were not so. At the moment, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, county wages committees allow a deduction of 3s. from wages for a house. If that deduction were not allowed, and a worker had to pay for his cottage, he would, obviously, be charged an economic rent which would probably be around 10s. and thereby he would be very much worse off if there was any change in the present system. There are other local customs, such as free or cheap garden and potato ground, and food such as pig meat and milk. These are not general deductions, but I think it would be most undesirable if this Bill should commercialise in any way those free allowances. That is what, it appears to me, is likely to happen.
I also want to bring to the notice of the Ministry of Labour the question of the single man because it is mainly, if not only, in country areas that single men live in bothies. It is generally considered to be good accommodation, and cheaper than men would have to pay if they boarded at private houses. It would be a great pity if these deductions were not allowed. I have glossed over a good


many other points I wished to raise but I think I have said enough to show the Solicitor-General what is in our minds and to ask him to let us know quite clearly whether the deductions I have mentioned, and the other free allowances, are excluded from this Clause.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) in this Amendment. It is primarily designed for the benefit of agricultural and rural workers, but when drafting the Amendment we had in mind the needs of our industrial friends, and had no desire to exclude them from the advantages which we hope to secure from the Government in regard to agricultural and rural workers. That is why the Amendment provides for certain local trade customs as well. If I might carry the illustration which my hon. and gallant Friend gave a little further, there is, for instance, the right to a cheap allocaton of coal, or any other mineral of that description. I have no hesitation in saying that I am very perturbed about this matter. The wages system in this country has very largely grown up on a traditional basis. The provisions in the Bill seem to exclude local and traditional customs which have arisen throughout generations. I am certain that it would be a great tragedy and a great disadvantage to many people if these customs, which have been of the utmost value and which are known and understood in the localities, were entirely swept away. I, therefore, earnestly hope that the Solicitor-General and the Minister will consent to an Amendment based on the principle which we are advocating, or will give us the assurance that we are seeking to include in this Bill, to ensure that the rights and privileges of employees in the countryside will be provided for in some way or other.

The Solicitor-General: I think it would help my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken on this Amendment, and I hope would not be disadvantageous to the Committee as a whole, if I indicated, quite shortly, the purport of the Clause with which we are dealing. Sub-section (1) provides that wages must be paid in cash; must be considered on a cash basis, subject to certain well-known and familiar deductions like national insurance and, more recently, Income Tax, and the permitted deductions under the Truck Act.

Sub-section (2) gives a right to the employer in this way: It says that where you have a benefit or advantage which is not illegal it may be considered and valuated by a wages council, which may value it at so much, and then the responsibility of the employer is to pay only the balance. Let me give a concrete case. Suppose your minimum remuneration was 80s. a week and the employer supplied a lodging or house. Supposing the wages council said that they would value that at 10s. a week. The cash responsibility of the employer would then be 70s. He would still have to pay 80s.—that would be his primary responsibility—but as the wages council had valued the accommodation at 10s. they would say that his actual cash responsibility was 70s. Sub-section (3) states that you cannot get round that by saying, "Well, we paid the money and then the man paid it back," which would be absurd and an easy way of getting round it. The Clause states that it is still a deduction if a man gets something and pays it back. I am leaving out a number of qualifications which have to be put in to cover all the circumstances.
May I now deal with the question of the estate carpenter? I am assuming that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) was talking about somebody who would be outside the agricultural workers wage regulations. Assuming that the carpenter has his lodging provided, we say it must come in under the procedure of Clause 2 and must be valuated by the wages council. The difficulty of the Amendment is that it would remove from the discretion of the wages council the right in these matters to make their valuation. That, again, we cannot accept but I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider whether that is not a reasonable method of dealing with it. If the estate owner provides accommodation then that will be taken into account, properly valued, and his financial responsibility will be for the balance of the minimum remuneration. I suggest that is the proper way of marrying the two ideas.
I have great sympathy with the attitude of mind. They want to continue in ways which are understood and appreciated in the countryside. We want to see that there is machinery for providing minimum remuneration. Surely the best way of marrying those two ideas is to say, We are at liberty to provide part


of your remuneration by giving lodging but the revaluation of that must be with the independent wages council. It cannot be left to the employer to put his value on it.
1.45 p.m.
The other point which I am prepared to look into concerns matters which are really distinct from the contract of employment, that is where it is not a condition of the employment that one gets a house. If people in that employment get a chance of a cheaper house, or cheaper travel, not as a condition of employment but as something which they get outside their employment, I want to see that these benefits, which many workers appreciate, are not struck at by the Bill, and put in such a position that employers would find it difficult to continue them. I will look into the difficulty that my hon. and gallant Friend has with regard to single men, but I should like further time to consider it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) put the general point that the Bill was tending to stereotype things. I have given the answer to that, that we can marry traditional methods of payment with what the social conscience of to-day insists on, that there should be, under proper procedure, a minimum remuneration in suitable industries. The essence of these councils is that they should be able to regard differentiations of grading among working people. I think if my hon. and gallant Friend considers that he will find that it meets much of the difficulty in his mind.

Major York: I quite follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument as far as it has gone, but he did not deal with the question where the whole wages condition is on a different basis, as in the building trade, and the basic wage is lower. Will the wages councils be able and willing to make exceptions in the case of estate workmen, such as builders and carpenters?

The Solicitor-General: That is really what I had in mind in my last sentence, that it will be possible for the wages councils to consider the different aspects of various workers. It would be quite wrong for the Executive at this Box to prejudge the matter and say what they ought to do, but they could do it and, if they thought it a proper approach, they

could give effect to what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: The next Amendment that I was proposing to move is in page 14, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (3).

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I said I would reconsider this Sub-section on the basis that I put forward and I did not intend to move the Minister's Amendment which is the next one. I thought we might leave the Sub-section for that reconsideration, and I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend might consider whether he would not move his Amendment, unless there is some new point that he wishes to put forward, until he sees the Clause in its new form.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: In view of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I find my task very much easier, but I would ask him to bear this point of view in mind. He has given his interpretation of the intention of the Clause.

The Chairman: There is no question before the Committee. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to move the Amendment or not? Would it not be better to discuss the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part?

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not propose now to move the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: The objects which my hon. and learned Friend intended to attain by the provisions of Sub-section (3) are those which I thought to obtain by its deletion. I had grave doubts whether it carried out the intentions that he had in mind. I would merely ask that, in reconsidering the matter, he will pay great attention to the actual phraseology.

Major York: If I read the Sub-section aright, it would debar a worker whose wages are paid as to one part in cash and as to the other in board, where for instance a land girl is employed and the employer pays the person who provides the lodging, from excluding her board


costs from her income for Income Tax purposes. I should like to be assured that it will not have any ill effect upon that valuable concession.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope the Minister and his assistant will be very careful not to make any further concessions on this question of remuneration. I heard an hon. Member talk about the fine customs that exist in the countryside. Those fine customs have produced a situation where many agricultural workers are dependent and completely lacking in anything like self-respect.

Major York: In Scotland, perhaps, but not in England.

Mr. Gallacher: In England. It is England that I am concerned about. If hon. Members are prepared to contradict me I am prepared to take them to parts of the English countryside where the custom still prevails. We have had such a clever and cunning manipulation of the wealth of the countryside that the unfortunate workers think that it is the parasitic squires who are maintaining them, not realising that they are maintaining the parasitic squires. It is carefully hidden by this method of remuneration. In every case the worker in the countryside or elsewhere should get the amount of money that he is entitled to by his labour, and it is up to him to pay any commitments that he undertakes in consequence of his employment. No further concessions should be made which will allow the system to go on under which the remuneration of the workers is eaten into by this patronage of the superior persons who are living at the expense of the toil of honest men and women.

The Solicitor-General: I will look into the point of the land girl and the Income Tax position.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Employers not to receive premiums.)

Major York: I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, after "apprenticeship," insert "or other contract".
The purpose of the Amendment is to widen the Clause as drawn, which only allows the payment of premiums for apprenticeship to articled apprentices as

far as I understand it. There are many other forms of apprenticeship which in my opinion are thoroughly desirable and should be continued. In particular, I would refer to the form of premium paid by pupils to good farmers in order to learn all that the farmers can teach them. There is another class, land agents, to whom pupils pay premiums. The Minister may say that the wages council would not apply to those two classes. I would agree that in the immediate future that is probably so, but we do not know where the Bill is going to take us. We do not know, for instance, whether in due course, under other Measures, wages councils could not be extended to include managerial or executive positions, and it is to protect the land agent or the farming pupil against such extensions that the Amendment is moved. There should be an upper level to which the Clause should apply and, as there is not, I consider that it ought to be widened.

2.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. The object of the Clause, which reproduces the provisions of Section 7 of the Trade Boards Act, closes the door upon what would otherwise present an obvious possibility of evading the minimum wage requirements by requiring the learner to pay weekly or monthly premiums. We do not want that. There is a proviso the object of which is to provide for a proper indenture of apprenticeship to be entered into under which, in return for a premium, the employer undertakes to give the worker proper training. We cannot widen that in the way suggested by the Amendment. It would open the door to other arrangements which would be far removed from anything which this Bill contemplates and which would not be desirable. There is no reason why, if articled clerks are ever likely to come under a wages council, they should not enter into apprenticeship indentures. That would be the proper way of dealing with them.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Major York: No, Sir.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, leave out "employment," and insert "apprenticeship."
This is necessary to provide for the case where the apprentice has begun employment some time previous to the apprenticeship indentures. The employment may have gone on for some considerable time, and it is obvious that the date of entry into the apprenticeship is the date that should be taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lindsay: I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that this Clause is a carry-over from the old Trade Boards Act. I have raised the question of premiums several times with my, right hon. Friend at Question time. Can he say whether it is likely that the wages councils will deal with industries where proper premiums are paid?

Mr. McCorquodale: It is possible but it is unlikely, because apprenticeships have declined very much in recent years and are exceptional to-day. They are sometimes found in respect of children who are indentured by arrangements with charitable trusts, and it is not considered desirable to interfere with that wholly beneficent practice.

Mr. Lindsay: My point is that it looks as if the Ministry of Labour—and I agree with them—take very little account of premiums which are being paid. In all the schemes for further education under the Education Acts no account is taken of premiums, and I would like to get a ruling at some time about what the attitude of the Ministry of Labour is on the question.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am afraid that I cannot give that.

Captain Duncan: I would like to get the meaning of the Clause clear from the point of view of an educational trust. I am a member of a charitable trust which does a certain amount of apprenticeship indenturing. We do not do so much as in the old days, but in the past few years we have indentured boys as sign-writers, watch-makers, cabinet makers, printers, upholsterers, hairdressers, locksmiths and electrical engineers. That list gives an

idea of the scope of the trades, but the numbers are very small.
In the indentures which we enter into we provide for the premiums to be in two moieties. As far as I can make out the proviso to this Clause, we shall now be allowed to make only one payment. Surely the wording should be altered to allow the premiums to be paid, not in one lump sum in advance, but as they become due in moieties in accordance with the indentures which are entered into. Although the apprenticeship system is on a much smaller scale than in the old days, it is one of those things that should be encouraged. We have helped boys from the elementary schools to gain scholarships to secondary and technical schools. We have then helped them to learn a trade, and they are fine fellows of whom we are proud. That sort of personal interest which people can take in boys should be encouraged, and I do not want some technical mistake in an Act of Parliament to interfere with that interest.

Mr. McCorquodale: It is not our intention to interfere with it. The Clause will not apply to any payment made in pursuance of an instrument of apprenticeship, but if there is any doubt I will look into it and clear up the point. It is not intended to interfere with these excellent schemes of apprenticeship.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Records and notices.)

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, leave out "three," and insert "two."
This Amendment seeks to reduce from three years to two the period during which proper records should be kept, for the purpose, no doubt, of seeing whether there has been any failure to comply with the Act. It has previously been stated that the field which the Bill covers will be wider than was formerly covered by the Trade Boards Acts. Many comparatively small employers with limited resources for bookkeeping, storage and so forth will probably be involved. Therefore, there should be the least practical hardship in the keeping of records consistent with the intentions of the Bill. I am advised that in the Catering Wages Act the necessary period for the keeping of records is two years and not three. Moreover, in Clause 11 the maximum period in which retrospective action for


failure to comply with the Act can be taken is two years. It would appear on the face of it, therefore, as though records for a longer period than is required to ensure proper compliance are demanded under this Clause. With a view to simplifying the responsibilities of those affected, it would seem sufficient for all that is intended if records for two years only were required.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I suggest that this Amendment and the hon. Member's next Amendment, to leave out line 14, cover very nearly the same point and that we might, with the consent of the Committee, discuss the two together?

Mr. Summers: I agree. The words in line 14, "or such longer period as may be prescribed," would have no real meaning if this Amendment were made. It is a consequential point to a certain extent.

The Solicitor-General: I think that my hon. Friend has forgotten one minor aspect of the matter, that under Clause 11 (3) the court is entitled to go back for two years and make the employer pay up. My hon. Friend mentioned that, but he had not in mind that the payment is from the date of the offence. The prosecution for the offence can take place any time up to six months from its commission, and often the discovery of the offence does not take place for some time after it has been committed. Therefore, we must have a period of more than two years in order to cover that circumstance, and I suggest that the three years is a reasonable period. I do not want to be oppressive, but if the Committee will agree to leave it at three years I am prepared to consider the second Amendment to see whether any additional period is necessary or useful.

Mr. Summers: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the point that in a similar context two years is all that is asked for in the Catering Wages Act?

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure how far the period went back under the Catering Act. I do not want to take a bad point against my hon. Friend, but whatever we did in that Act I cannot see the answer to the point I put to the Committee that there must often be a time for the prosecution for the offence which does not come until some time after the offence is committed. Therefore, we need

some period in addition to the two years in which back wages have to be paid. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that if the Catering Wages Act does not contain that provision my right hon. Friend should introduce an amending Bill and put it right. If he does, I will consider that point.

Mr. Summers: Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that it is not intended that a prosecution should go further back than it was required to do under the Catering Wages Act, and that the necessary records consistent with that are all that is required?

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that I must ask for the three years.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I should like to support the Government in the stand they are taking on this point. We had an important conference of the principal unions concerned in this type of machinery, and they were insistent on the full three years. As the Solicitor-General has shown, some months may elapse before a case can be taken into court. If there is to be benefit from a back-dating of two years on the award, there must be a period in which records are kept and made available as required for any action that is taken.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 15, leave out line 14.

I understand that the Solicitor-General is disposed to accept this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I said that I would consider carefully and sympathetically whether any period over the three years is necessary, and if we find it is we will put down the necessary Amendment on Report.

Mr. Summers: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Officers.)

2.15 p.m.

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, leave out paragraph (e).
It is to the word "alone" that I wish to draw the attention of the Minister. I think it is generally agreed to be undesirable for any official or police officer, or any other person in authority, to question any person on any matter unless that person is accompanied by a friend or some independent witness. No doubt the Committee will remember what is known as the Savage case, a great many years ago, when a girl who was reckoned to be an important witness was questioned alone by the police. She appears to have been a young woman with her head screwed on the right way. The Press took the matter up and there was a great deal of public indignation; since when, I believe, that practice has been completely discontinued. It is unfortunate that that practice should be continued in any legislation which this House is called upon to pass. I know I may be told that this practice is allowed under the Trade Board Acts, to which the House gave its consent about 25 years ago, and that it is also contained in the Catering Wages Act, but that the House has in the past given this power to some officials is no reason why we should continue to endorse that practice.
I feel most strongly that any person who is to be questioned by the police or by any public official has the right to insist upon being accompanied by a friend. One can well imagine that an over zealous official, possibly with the best intentions in the world, may so cross-question a young girl in employment in a factory or workshop that she will be induced to make all sorts of statements that are not strictly in accordance with the facts, and be obliged to sign that statement, and thus cause a great deal of avoidable trouble. I would ask my right hon. Friend either to remove the words in the Clause or to give some definite assurance that a person who is to be questioned will always have the right to be accompanied by a friend.

Mr. Bevin: This is in all the industrial legislation that has been carried in this House for a good many years. The purpose of it is that the work person, when interviewed, needs particularly to be free of the employer, because of the fear of victimisation. The real point is that an inspector has the right to ask the work person to give him a statement. Other-

wise he is bound to depend on written records, which puts the inspector in a very difficult position. Subject to correction, I think it would practically nullify the effect of the next Amendment on the Paper, which I propose to accept and which is in the name of myself, the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), and others. Under that Amendment a person is not called upon to do anything that incriminates himself. This is the only way in which we can really get the facts. We are not dealing with a criminal case in the sense of the Savage case; it is not on the same grounds at all; the questioning is certainly not for the same purpose.

Mr. Pritt: It is not even a Money Bill.

Mr. Bevin: Therefore I must ask that the paragraph should stand. There has never been a case during the period of the Trade Boards Acts in which there has been complaint of the procedure.

Captain Thorneycroft: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for a very fair answer on this point, I think this is a matter on which the Solicitor-General ought to give us the benefit of his opinion. Clauses of this kind are, on the face of it, most undesirable. It is all very well to put in a Clause like this, but witnesses do not make a lucid statement of the facts and then sign it. What happens—and no doubt the Solicitor-General will bear me out from his experience—is that an officer cross-examines, by means of leading questions, the person from whom he is trying to get evidence, and then he writes down the answers to the questions as though they came freely from the witness.
The Bill requires that the person should sign the statement. The Solicitor-General knows the difficulties that one gets into in the courts in these circumstances. There is a written statement which is supposed to be the freely-offered evidence of the witness. The person says: "I did not mean that at all." The court then points to the signature, and extraordinary difficulties arise. Again and again a police officer who has insisted on the signature has received a very sharp reprimand. To allow that system to be embodied in the Bill is extremely undesirable. The point is so important in legal practice that we ought to have the opinion of the Solicitor-General on it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: If it had not been a fact that there has been no complaint against an officer during the last 25 or 30 years of operation of this type of Section in Acts of Parliament, I should be influenced by what has just been said on collecting evidence from complainants. I am very much concerned about some aspects of this problem. If the Amendment were carried I think it would mean that a complainant who wanted to be alone during an examination could not be alone.

Captain Thorneycroft: No.

Mr. Davies: It is very often the case that the person to be examined would prefer to be alone, but the arguments put up by hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite imply that if their Amendment were carried nobody could be alone during this examination, even if he so wished.

Captain Thorneycroft: No.

Mr. Davies: I am arguing my own case, and I do not want the hon. and gallant Member to say "No" at every point of my statement. This examination is not to be done by the police, which makes all the difference. When any factory or coalmines inspector comes on the scene at present, he is not there as a policeman. Consequently, I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment, because there has been no case under the Trade Board Acts of complaint relevant to this Amendment. Above all, I could not imagine, for instance, a small shopkeeper, if he were examined for an offence under the Bill, wanting any one of his assistants to be present when he was examined by the inspector.

Mr. Pritt: Apart from the special grounds which have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in defence of the Clause, I would like to say something with reference to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Thorneycroft). I have some sympathy with what is in his mind, which is that in the ordinary criminal case, a policeman, inspired by zeal or some other motive, may question people pretty vigorously. If the hon. and gallant Member is suggesting that there is any general practice in this country of protecting persons who are being questioned by the

police by giving them the right to insist upon somebody else always being present, he is describing something of which I have never heard. I may be entirely wrong, but I have the impression that at least 99 per cent. of the ordinary citizens questioned by ordinary police in ordinary crimes—if one may use that expression—are examined alone.

Captain Thorneycroft: If, in the ordinary course of events, a private citizen is being asked questions by the police, and he says that he wishes to have his solicitor or friend present, the policeman will be most unwise to refuse that request. Moreover, no policeman has the right to insist upon examination.

Mr. Pritt: No police officer has a right to insist upon examination, in the sense that a person can always refuse to answer. I have never been examined by the police that I can recollect, but I am told that it is very difficult to refuse to answer. No doubt I shall learn in due course. It is perfectly true that the person has that technical right to ask for his solicitor, but in the enormous percentage of what I call the ordinary examinations the person concerned has not a solicitor, even if he wanted to call one.

Captain Thorneycroft: He can call a friend.

Mr. Silverman: There is one small point upon which I have sympathy with the promoters of the Amendment, although on the main point I think they are mistaken and that the Amendment ought to be defeated. The Clause makes it compulsory on the part of the interviewed person to sign the statement. Perhaps that is not necessary. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it rather weakens the evidence that is obtained by the officer than strengthens it. The great force of having a signature to a document is that the signature is voluntarily given, when it is taken as an attestation of the truth of the statement made by the person who signed it—or his belief in its truth. If you compel the person to sign it, and then the person says: "I did not mean that. The officer got it down wrong. I meant rather more, or rather less, than that," and then you produce the signature, the person can say: "It is true that my signature is on the document but only because I had to put it there. I had not the right to put it


or not put it as I chose." My right hon. Friend might pay some attention to that point, I suggest.

Commander Galbraith: I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment that the principal objection was that the person to be examined should have someone else there, if he so desired. Apart from that, I think there is good reason to ask that this Clause be reconsidered. Let me point out that there are no less than three Amendments in the name of the Minister. In view of what is happening, could we have an assurance that the whole matter will be reconsidered before the Report stage?

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I might deal first with the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I should have thought that we were dealing with a perfectly clear point here, which stand by itself and on which there is difference of opinion. The main point with which we are dealing is the right of the inspector to examine the person alone. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has introduced a second point, with which I am willing to deal, as to the advisability of requiring a signature to the statement. On the first point, surely the difference between the proceedings here and the proceedings referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Thorneycroft) is that here the officer is taking a statement from the complainant. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the words of the Clause, and will, with his mind's eye, take in the Amendment which the Government propose, it reads:
… person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been a worker to whom a wages regulation order applies or has applied …
We are in quite a different atmosphere, when dealing with getting a statement from the proposed complainant or someone who is a fellow worker with the complainant, from that of taking a statement from a defendant, which is what my hon. Friend had mainly in mind.

2.30 p.m.

Captain Cobb: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend? Surely these people are not necessarily complainants? They may be people who are supposed

to be affected by some breach of the regulations but are not necessarily complainants.

Mr. Pritt: Then use the word "victims."

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and gallant Friend may have in mind people who have been paid inadequate or illegal wages for a period and who do not complain. There may be some who may be charitable to that extent. I would be the last to say there are none, but I will deal with that aspect in a moment. I do not think it is unfair to say that people who have been paid, or regarding whom there is a question of their having been paid, inadequate or illegal wages, can be justly described as complainants in that matter. I repeat that they are substantially in the position of complainants, and the inspector is not in the position of a policeman, but is the person who can assist those people to establish their rights.

Sir John Mellor: If these people are ordinarily treated as complainants why, under Sub-section (6), should they be required to answer?

The Solicitor-General: That hangs on the point which has already been dealt with, that although they are people with regard to whom it is believed that they have been inadequately or illegally paid, and are, therefore, in the position of complainants, they are also people who have a job to hold. The difficulty that might well arise—I do not say it would arise in every case—and we consider it right to protect these people against it, is that they might be unwilling, especially in the presence of their employer, and even if he was not there, to give the evidence or to speak as freely, because of their fears. That is why we considered it right that if the inspector suspects that to be the position, he should have the right to take the statement alone.

Sir J. Mellor: While that may be a good explanation of the reason for the questioning taking place in camera, surely it is no justification for those people being compelled to answer?

The Solicitor-General: I am very sorry, but my hon. Friend and I have very different ideas about the administration of justice, and what is necessary in that regard. If we decide it is proper to have this basis of minimum remuneration,


then I should have thought it was most desirable that people in that position should be compelled to answer and that the law should be fortified. My hon. Friend takes a different view. I can only say that I disagree with him strongly.
I would now like to deal with the point—because it is an interesting one—which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). If he will allow me to say so, I have personal reasons for knowing his great experience of this subject matter. He raised the question of the signature to the statement. There again, I think the most compelling reason is that it often happens that somebody makes a statement giving an account of an event having taken place, or giving a certain account of any occurrence, and after that time pressure is put on them to alter that statement. My hon. Friend will appreciate the obvious pressure which might be brought there is the fear of losing the job, exercised one way or the other. My hon. Friend knows, as well as anyone, the difficulty in which one is placed if a person resiles from his statement, but it is some help when one has got a signed statement in writing to the contrary, which can be used in the way my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Silverman: Certainly, but the point I was trying to make is that the effectiveness of that signature is reduced, not increased, if the witness should afterwards say, "Yes, my signature is there, but it is not because I thought the statement was right, it is because I had no right to refuse my signature."

The Solicitor-General: There is no compulsion on him to sign an untrue statement. I agree that we have all had that position, and we know the difficulties that arise, and one has to reach a balance between them. What we are dealing with, and what we want to declare by this Sub-section is that the forces of law and order will do their utmost to discourage any attempt to put pressure on the worker in those circumstances. Therefore, we put in a strong Clause. I think if we have a strong Clause it will deal with a great many of the dangers we anticipate. I am sure that a strong Clause is the right way, in these circumstances, to do what we all, in every quarter of the Committee, want, that is, to get at the truth.

Mr. Gallacher: After having listened to the legal men, I want to put another point in connection with this matter. The Solicitor-General is quite right in his presentation of the situation that applies when this Bill will be effective. Always, the underpaid worker will be the complainant. There will not be complaints that some workers are overpaid, and that the regulations are, therefore, not being carried out. When the inspector makes an examination it will always be in the case of an employer trying to undercut the wages he is supposed to pay. It is terrible that we should have to pass so many laws, and take up so much time here, trying to keep these capitalistic sharks within something like reasonable dimensions in the national pool. In the workshops we have had experience time and time again of men being paid below the rates that were supposed to prevail in that particular trade, and it was nearly impossible to get them to admit that they were being underpaid because they were so afraid—they had a wife and family at home—lest they were thrown out on to the streets. Of course, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee have never seen the conditions under which men, women and children have to live and work. The Minister is trying here to devise some means to overcome that difficulty in cases where an employer tries to cut down to the very bone the remuneration of the worker. There would be no need for this Bill at all if there were not conditions in this country under which men and women are living below the poverty line. I know it is a matter for cynical smiles on the part of those—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it is a matter for a Second or Third Reading speech, not on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I know those on the other side live in a different realm altogether. They scoop up the pool. They take away the wealth others produce and leave the minimum for the workers.
This particular Clause is very important. There can never be any question of a man signing an answer if it is untrue. If he is not prepared to give a correct answer he had better not give an answer at all. He can always refuse to give an answer. The officer should be empowered, after he has taken the statement, to take the necessary measures to ensure that no victimisation of any kind


shall be directed against that man. That is the important factor. We had the same thing in connection with the Rents Bill, because when people went and made complaints about being soaked too much for rents, they were ordered out of the houses. The officer must be given power to keep these men in their jobs after they have signed the statement, so that he can carry out the regulations. Let us make no mistake about it, a Clause of this kind is very necessary to guard the workers against rapacious employers.

Captain Cobb: I hope my hon. and learned Friend does not feel embarrassed at the quarter from which he has just had that support. I can assure the Minister of Labour I am fully aware of the fact that the kind of misdemeanour with which these officials will be dealing will be quite different from the kind of thing dealt with in what is known as the "Savage case." I am not altogether satisfied with the answer, because I feel strongly about this business of people being examined without having the right to be accompanied by a friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies) appears to think that I want to have the employer brought in. That is not my idea; it would be putting the employer in an impossible position. But there should be words in this Clause to make it quite clear that the employee, if he so desires, has the right to be accompanied by a friend of his own choosing. I am not able, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, leave out from "person," to "whom," in line 16.
This Amendment is brought forward because my attention was called, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to the fact that it might be applied to distributive and other trades, and that the inspector might—I do not think he would—have the power to interview customers. This Amendment and the next one in my name limits his questioning to the employee, agent or the employer, and makes the Clause clear as to the investigation that can take place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 19, after "applied," insert:

or the employer of any such person or a servant or agent of the employer employed in the employer's business."—[Mr. Bevin.]

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in line 21, at end, insert:
Provided that no person shall be required under paragraph (e) of this sub-section to give any information tending to criminate himself.
These words are in the Catering Act and they give effect to an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) put down a similar Amendment, and we have merged the two into one. This, I think, gives effect to a similar principle of existing legislation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask a question? I can imagine a case where wages are enforceable under this Act, and where an employer employs only a small number of people in the distributive trades. In some cases, I think, the employee will not have sufficient courage, lest he loses his job, to make a complaint. Is it possible for the officer who will implement this Clause to take steps to bring the matter to the notice of the authorities and see that it is implemented? I am sure that the Minister of Labour knows of such cases, both in distribution and other occupations, and I shall be very glad to receive some reply from him.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, and under Sub-section (5), which we have already carried, the duty of seeing that the Act is carried out and enforced rests upon the Minister.

Mr. Davies: That is my point. Would the officer, in that case, require to interview any of the staff?

Mr. Bevin: I have dealt with that.

Mr. Davies: I can see a difficulty arising there, and it is a very real one. I am sure that cases will arise in very small firms where it would be very difficult for the officer to secure the evidence from one of the employees, lest he should suffer in consequence, and I am wondering if there is any process whereby the employer can be compelled to carry out the law, even if the employee concerned refuses to give the evidence.

Mr. Bevin: It will be the duty of the inspector to get the evidence. If the employee will not give him the truth, he


must get it some other way, I suppose, but he must get evidence to show whether or not the standards of wages are being observed. I do not think there will be any more difficulty in the trades covered by this Bill than there was a few years ago under the Agricultural Wages Act. There, you had one or two men involved, and that Act, when they got used to it, has been carried out ever since. They had to pay a little bit at the beginning, which had a very good effect upon them, but, afterwards, the Act worked extremely well. We may come across cases of the character mentioned by the hon. Member, but, of course, under Clause (5) the absolute duty is placed on the Minister to see that the Act is carried out.

Captain Thorneyeroft: Is the officer who is conducting this cross-examination bound to warn the person examined that he is not bound to answer his questions? Otherwise, it seems to me, putting this in the Bill does not mean very much.

Mr. Bevin: Inspectors act with a good deal of tact and common sense. The officers have to investigate and get the facts whether or not the wages are being paid. Why is the inspector put into this Bill? The inspector is put in this Bill to get these wages paid because it is assumed that the individual whom you are looking after is not strong enough to get them himself. That is the reason of it. The inspector is the protector of the recipient of the wages. He is not going around looking for criminality or something of that kind. Who are the people likely to stand in his way in getting this information? The bad employer, who has not been fair. He does not have to go to the good employer at all. I am not quite conversant with the exact way in which these inspectors do it, but I will find out by the Report stage and inform my hon. Friend. Up to now, they have carried out their duties, as I have just said, without a word of complaint from the employers. A good many of the complaints that do reach us concern competitors where the wages are not being paid, and where, therefore, the inspector gets on the job and gets the evidence.

Mr. Gallacher: The inspector is the protector of the man who is too weak to protect himself regarding remuneration, but will he protect him after he has got the remuneration?

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Is the inspector able to provide that, if certain information is given by the man which would incriminate him, that evidence could not be brought against him?

Mr. Bevin: No. But may I make this further observation? Every employer, under this Bill, is presumed to keep records. We know there are a great many cases where no records have been kept at all. Therefore, you have to go to find out from the person whether the wages have or have not been paid. The employer, in that case, may possibly commit two offences, one in not keeping a record and second, in not paying the wages. The inspector, in cases where records are not kept, has to go round and get the evidence of what in fact has been happening, because the written evidence is not there.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, to leave out from "Act" to end of Sub-section.
This Amendment deals with a matter of procedure governing the manner in which these cases are presented when they come into court. Under the Bill as it stands, it is provided that the inspector may institute proceedings; no objection can, of course, be taken to that. But it goes on to provide that he may not only institute proceedings, but may conduct the proceedings himself. Upon the face of it, no doubt, hon. Members will think that there is no very great objection to that procedure. It has, in fact, been the procedure under the Trade Boards Act for a number of years. It is also the procedure which is followed under the Factory Acts in the cases of prosecutions instituted by the inspectors of factories.
It is precisely because I believe that experience both under the existing Trade Boards legislation and the Factory Acts has shown that this procedure is not satisfactory, either from the point of view of the inspectors themselves, or that of the Department, that I have put down this Amendment, which would have the effect of making it obligatory upon the Department that some person other than the inspector should be responsible for conducting the case if and when it comes into court. Let hon. Members consider for a moment how the procedure works out in fact. The inspector goes into the court and takes his seat in the advocate's


place in court. He proceeds to open his case as an advocate. Sometimes, advocates are tempted when opening their cases to put a little more gloss upon their cases than is put upon them by their witnesses when they give evidence. Having done that, the inspector then proceeds to go into the witness box, take the oath, give evidence as his principal witness, and submit himself to cross-examination by his opponent. Having been cross-examined, he comes down from the witness box and takes his place again at the advocate's table.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend, in days gone by, had a very wide experience of these cases, and I venture to hope that his experience in those days has satisfied him that that form of procedure was not a satisfactory form of procedure from any point of view. It is a very undesirable thing that the same individual should play the double role of advocate and witness in his own case. I think that the Committee will appreciate that it is not easy for a man who has decided to institute a prosecution, upon evidence which he has himself collected, to go before a tribunal and take that detached view of the subject matter of the prosecution, and of the manner in which it should be presented, which it is very desirable, in the interests of justice, that he should take.
Let me say this also in support of my Amendment. I believe, and, certainly, my belief is confirmed by my own experience of the past when I was sometimes concerned in cases of this sort—and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend's experience confirms it also—that that method of presenting cases was not in the interests either of justice or, indeed, of the Department itself. The tribunals were apt to take an unfavourable view of a case presented to them in that way. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the Amendment, because I believe it is really in the interests of justice and of the efficient manner in which this Bill should be carried out that some person who has the training and experience of an advocate should be interposed between the inspector and the tribunal.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am very pleased to observe that my hon. and learned Friend is all alone

in his proposal, although I note that there are other hon. and worthy Members of his profession present. I hope they will leave him alone and not give him any support for this Amendment. Of all the Amendments that my trade union friends dislike, this is the one they dislike most.
3.0 p.m.
In our experience—I speak as one who has spent many days and weeks with industrial courts and wages boards—we find it much better for all the pleadings and submission of cases, and examination of the business before the chairman, to be conducted not by learned professors of the law. If the Committee accepted this Amendment it would introduce a new principle into all these industrial relationships. It would create a nasty precedent, and it would mean that if such a course could be adopted here it could be adopted elsewhere, and the preparation and submission of cases would take much longer and be far more expensive.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the hon. Member allow me to ask whether he appreciates that, if the prosecution is successful, an order for costs will be made against the offending party?

Mr. Walkden: That supports my point. These troubles ought to be dealt with in a human sort of way, and I suggest that there is no one better qualified to submit a case than the officer associated with the wages council. He knows both sides. He may be trying to get the right thing done by a worker who has been tricked. On the other hand, he may be trying to do his best for the good employer. He knows the balance of the whole trade, and no one could possibly have greater qualifications in this matter than such an officer or inspector. We who have to deal with these labour problems prefer to have the amateur inspector, or the amateur trade union advocate, as the worker's friend than to bring in barristers to elaborate proceedings and make them most costly and difficult to institute. Therefore, I hope the Committee will not give encouragement to this unfortunate Amendment.

Sir E. Shepperson: I would like to say that my hon. and learned Friend has some support for his Amendment. I support his Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friends opposite, who are strong trade unionists, will have a certain sympathy for my posi-


tion on this occasion because what I am defending is the exclusion of members of my profession in certain cases, but I would like to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), that I recognise the true high mindedness of his approach. He is concerned that advocates should present any criminal case in a detached spirit, and should not identify themselves with the hounding down of the alleged criminal. That is an admirable feature of our system of justice of which no one could be a stronger supporter than myself. But in fairness to those concerned with this matter, I go back in memory to the days when I used to defend in Factory Acts prosecutions against factory inspectors who conducted them, and I must say, as my hon. and learned Friend has appealed to my memory, that I have never noticed the desire to persecute instead of prosecute those against whom I appeared.
I should like to say—and I think this will meet my hon. and learned Friend very largely—that the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that the practice is for the solicitor of the Ministry of Labour to conduct these prosecutions, and either to appear by a legally qualified member of his own staff, or to instruct counsel, or to instruct other solicitors. That is the general practice, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave the undertaking that that should continue. Why, then, do we not accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment? It is for the reason that there are numerous possible cases, such as the failure to post a notice, and matters of that kind, in which it would really be unnecessary to have a professional advocate, and which could be dealt with by the inspector. It is rather absurd, when the matter is one of comparatively small content and not of primary importance, that hard-and-fact rules should be made. Therefore, I can give my hon. and learned Friend the undertaking that the practice will be in the more serious cases—although practically universally excepted in the minor cases—for the prosecution to be conducted by the legal department of the Ministry, and I ask him to withdraw his Amendment and to allow this reasonable compromise on this issue to continue as before.

Mr. Hutchinson: I have no desire to press this matter, and as my hon. and learned Friend has given me an assur-

ance which certainly meets the point of my Amendment to a large extent—although I am not sure how far it meets the point of my hon. Friend on the other side—I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hutchinson: I desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments. I regret I was not able to be present during the whole of the Debate upon the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). This Clause is one which I think the Committee will necessarily and quite rightly regard at first sight with some suspicion. In my judgment it would be a very bad thing if the procedure embodied in this Clause was to be extended beyond the sphere to which it is restricted in this Bill. It is a form of procedure which is quite foreign to our ordinary procedure in criminal matters; it is a procedure which, I think, the House should approach with a due sense of hesitation. But, on the other hand, it is quite true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that this Bill deals with matters of a rather exceptional and peculiar nature. In order to institute, with success, a prosecution under this Bill, the Minister has got to prove that a certain person has not been paid some comparatively small sum of money; and unless his inspectors are given the special powers which this Clause confers upon them, it would be very difficult and, in many cases, I am satisfied, quite impossible, to prosecute in a case of this nature at all. Therefore, I did not support the Amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
It seems to me that the most objectionable feature of this Clause is the provision that a witness, who has been examined by an inspector, should be required to sign a declaration of the statements he has made to the inspector in the course of such examination. I would like to invite my right hon. Friend to look again at that part of the Clause. The objection which I see to such a procedure is that it substitutes the sanction of this declaration made to the inspector for the sanction of the witness's oath. That is a very dangerous thing. When a


witness gives evidence in the court, what Jeremy Bentham called "the sanction of truth" is the witness's oath which he takes. But a witness who has made a declaration to an inspector on an earlier occasion and has been required to sign a declaration that the statement which he has made is true, and who knows that there may be a penalty if he afterwards admits that what he has said was not true, when he eventually goes into the witness box is likely to be influenced most, not by the oath he has taken in court, but the declaration which he has made to the official on an earlier occasion.
It is, as I say, no doubt right that my right hon. Friend's inspectors should have these special powers, notwithstanding the fact that they depart so drastically from what we have come to regard as the proper form of criminal investigation; but I would invite him to look again at this Clause from the standpoint which I have been endeavouring to put to the Committee, and see whether it is, possible, with the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, to devise some form of procedure which will not be open to this objection that it substitutes some other sanction for what ought to be the highest sanction of all—the sanction of truth which attaches to the witness's oath.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Re-enactment with modifications of Part III of S. R. & O. 1940, No. 1305, as amended.)

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 18, line 24, leave out "five," and insert "three."
It is appropriate to remind the Committee that we are now dealing with Part III of the Bill, which raises quite different considerations from those relevant to Parts I and II. Here the principle evolved during the war has to be prolonged, namely, the legalising of arrangements voluntarily arrived at between two sides of organised industry. Powers are taken to enable someone affected by an employer not following those agreed arrangements to have recourse to the courts as a consequence. There may be one or two

Members of the Committee who will be aware of my association with the steel industry, and, therefore, it is only right that I should say that, in expressing such views as I now intend to do, I am expressing my own views as an individual, and not the collective views of any particular body.
The Minister, on Second Reading, made it plain that it is his intention and desire that the conditions envisaged by Part III of the Bill should be made effective for a period which, it was estimated, would coincide with the transitional period, when there will be considerable dislocation and difficulty and abnormal situations in transferring from war production to peace production. The Amendment seeks to reduce the five-year period stated in the Clause to a three-year period, but references to this point in the Press have tended to obscure the fact that the five or three-year period does not begin until the expiry of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order. Whichever period may be taken, we are in fact dealing with a period that is to start from an unknown date. The Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order has relevance to war conditions, and I would expect the view to prevail that those conditions will be equally valid durng the course of the Japanese war as they are during the course of the German war. It might follow that the current Order might well last for a considerable time because we have not even yet finished with the German war, and we shall then have the Japanese war to contend with afterwards. I suggest to the Committee that it is not a great stretch of imagination to say that the Bill, as drafted, might well govern the conditions which are to be made for the next eight years and it should, surely, be possible in a shorter period to have passed the transitional years and enable us to assess the peace conditions which are likely to prevail.
3.15 p.m.
There are those, I know, who regard this principle of enforcing joint arrangements on everyone as a good thing in itself and as one which should be made a permanent feature of our industrial life. There may be those who take the opposite view and dislike it and consequently will wish to reduce this period to the shortest possible. I would like to make it plain


to the Committee that for my part I have an open mind as to whether this should be part of our peace-time arrangements when conditions once more become normal. I do not think that one is justified in deciding on the merits of that kind of system on the experience we have had so far. The conditions during the war are obviously totally different from those which prevail in peace-time. It is a very important point whether the findings of two sets of people in this matter—on which body, may I remind the Committee, the Government are not in any shape or form represented and of which there is in all probability no so-called impartial chairman, but which substantially represents the two sides of industry—shall be made binding on a minority elsewhere, regardless of the fact that that minority has had no opportunity of expressing its views during the course of negotiations. There is also the point of how far it is found possible for the arrangements entered into to be honoured in practice. I do not, by saying that, wish to cast any doubt on the integrity of the trade union leaders who enter into those joint arrangements. One's experience proves that it is the contrary and that when once an arrangement is entered into, it is their ambition and determination to see that it is honoured. But we have had experience during the war of far too many unofficial strikes being started contrary to the advice of the accredited leaders of the trade unions. Here is a system which depends upon the representatives of both sides being able, in practice, to enforce on their constituents the arrangements which they have mutually agreed shall prevail. Until one can have adequate assurances, from experience, that the two sides are capable of honouring such an arrangement, it seems to me to be asking too much to go beyond the transitional years in enforcing such arrangements with legal sanctions.
The question arises, What is a reasonable period to regard as transitional? I think it is relevant to remind the Committee that the period ahead which was proposed in agriculture—not necessarily directly related to the transitional years, but, nevertheless, intended to help over the uncertain period—assured farmers of certain benefits in the matter of prices up to 1948; and also that the conditions that should prevail for coalminers were provided for up to approximately 1948.

Here, as I have indicated, we may be going as far as eight years ahead from now—five years beyond the time which it was thought reasonably possible to cover in the coal trade and agriculture. It seems to me not only unnecessary, but possibly most unwise, to legislate at this juncture for conditions which it will be extremely difficult to foresee, namely, those of the peace years which will follow the transitional period. I said that this period does not start until an unknown date, namely, the date of the expiration of the current Employment and National Arbitration Order.
I would not object if the Minister preferred to clarify the matter still further by fixing a particular date when this Clause should cease to have effect—in other words, to make the best assessment possible now of the transitional years, and to make the Bill operate for that period; but we are asked to assent to conditions applying over a completely unknown period, which may be five, six, seven, eight, nine, or 10 years—I do not know. It would be more sensible to fix a period which we can be reasonably sure will cover the transitional years, and to let that be the period provided in Part III of the Bill. For instance, if 1950 was thought to be the time by which conditions could be reasonably expected to settle down, I would accept that as eliminating the defects in the five-year period following the National Arbitration Order as at present set out. On those grounds, I would ask the Committee not to legislate, as we should probably be doing by this Clause, for the peace years, but to see that the conditions apply only to the transitional years. When that time is ended, we shall be better able to judge the merits of prolonging the system still further, and in that way help to make conditions more satisfactory in industry.

Mr. Burden: On the last occasion when I had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) I was happy to be able to agree with him. I am sorry to say that I cannot do so this afternoon. I feel that he has not made out his case for shortening the period to three years. I think that one of the things for which the future will thank the present Minister of Labour is that he is striving in every possible way to see that, after this war, we are not thrown into the industrial strife that we had after the last war. The longer


we have, after the present turmoil is over, for the country and industry to settle down, the longer period of tranquillity we have, the better for all concerned. I am sure that five years is really the minimum that we ought to allow. The Clause only gives legal sanction to agreements which have been arrived at voluntarily between reasonable men on both sides in industry. Those of us who have learned a little economics will appreciate that in industry, as in other things, the Gresham law operates, and the bad will drive out the good. It is to deal with the people who are not prepared to play the game in industry that this Clause is of very great importance. Organisations which are not militant in the ordinary sense attach very great importance to this Clause. Certain things have happened during the war, and advantage has been taken of the arrangements under the Arbitration Act, which has enabled us to put right things which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Northampton would desire to be put right. I mention one instance, what is known as the Bingley case, in regard to the payment of allowances to those serving with the Forces. We might get all sorts of things like that arising in a transitional period. I hope the Minister will stand by the Clause, and not accept the limitation which is proposed.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I support very strongly the views which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). The hon. Member for Park (Mr. Burden) put a very good argument for retaining on a permanent basis the terms of this Clause, but if what my hon. Friend is doing is to deal with the transitional period, and if the temporary war regulations are going to last for an uncertain period, I should have thought that three years would be ample to cover the transitional period. It is, I think, according to all the dictates of good sense, when facing an unknown period to take a reasonable period into account before the time begins to run. Therefore, the three-year period will, no doubt, turn out to be three and a half or four years, or some such time, which will be, in my opinion, ample to cover the transitional period. I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider this Amendment favourably, along the lines argued so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers), who wants to limit the five-year period in this Bill to three years, usually brings to our Debates a sense of logic upon which I compliment him and which I often envy, and a force of reasoning which is difficult to resist, but, upon my soul, I cannot understand what he is driving at to-day. He referred to the virtues of the open mind. These virtues must not be confused with the vice of the empty mind, and I thought that his mind on this subject was, in fact, empty. The trouble is that he has not yet made up his mind whether the basic principle underlying this Clause is good or bad. If he had made up his mind that the Clause was bad he would have opposed it as a whole; if he had made up his mind that it was good, he would not have tried to limit the duration of its effectiveness.
I hold that the principle underlying this Clause is good. I speak as a trade union official and also as a minor capitalist, and in both respects I take the view that the good men in industry ought to get together against the bad men in industry. I can assure the Committee that the holiday camp industry, with which I am connected, can afford to pay good wages and give good conditions of service, but not until the conditions given by the good employers are made obligatory on the bad employers shall we get the necessary floor to wages and conditions in that industry. Taking the view that that is good and not bad, I resist the view that we should reduce the limit from five years to three.
I do not understand this opposition coming frond that side of the Committee. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Northampton recognises what a change in the trade union position is represented by the acceptance of Clauses of this kind. In the United States of America, the American Federation of Labour has for many generations proceeded on the basis that it wanted no regulation by the State whatever. In this country, the trade union movement has reconciled itself to the idea of State regulation only gradually and with difficulty, and when a Labour Minister of Labour—it is true I had to have a few sharp words with him at Question Time to-day, but I am supporting him at the moment on this Clause—is able to bring to this House a Bill which provides that for five years from a specified date


the agreements reached in industry shall have the force of law, I should have thought that the Tory Party in this House would have hastened to accept it with both hands. This represents something like a revolution in the traditional attitude of the Labour movement in this country.
The hon. Member for Northampton is troubled about strikes in war-time, but he must do the Labour movement some justice there. The actual number of days lost in unofficial strikes during this war is about one-seventh of the number of days lost in the last war, and in view of some of the labour conditions which are endured in Britain to-day—on which I found the Minister of Labour singularly unrepentant at Question Time—what I am surprised at is not the number of days that have been lost in strikes during this war, but the smallness of that number. In any case, whether the number be small or large, it does not affect the principle at stake in this Amendment. I regard the Clause as good, and I see no reason why we should limit it to five years. I do not see why it should not be a permanent feature of our industrial legislation, and I would resist the Amendment to reduce that five years to three.

Sir G. Mander: I also am one of those who would like to see this Clause made a permanent feature of our industrial life, and I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment to limit it. After all, this is not just a question of the war. We had long experience of agreements of this kind before the war, and, therefore, to try to link it up with war conditions is not really to give a true picture of the situation. I took a great deal of interest in these joint industrial councils for some time before the war, and my experience was that a number of them were most anxious to obtain powers of this kind. So far as my experience went, in every instance the trouble experienced was that a limited number, a minority, who had every opportunity of presenting their case, were refusing to play the game with the good employers. There seems to be every reason why the good employers and the workers, when they get together, ought to be supported, so that decent standards of wages and conditions should occur throughout industry. I agree with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that this represents a change from the point of

view of the trade unions. We ought to recognise and encourage that, and I think that anything which will tend to limit the beneficent influence of this proposal would be regrettable. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will say "No" to the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: If I may summarise the Debate on this Clause, it seems to take two forms. One view is that the Clause should be permanent. I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) really wants to make it shorter, and what he really wants, if I understand him aright, is to retain Parliamentary control over the situation during this period. Without going into all the arguments, I think possibly that between now and the Report stage I could really meet those points of view. When two people are on opposite sides, it is safer to walk down the middle—

Mr. Barnes: As long as one is not walking on both sides at once.

Mr. Bevin: —and I think it is possible in this case. The fact is that Order 1305 will, as my hon. Friend says, continue for some time. I do not know when it will come to an end and neither does anybody else, but we are anxious that there shall be no sudden interruption of the arrangements which Order 1305 seeks to cover. If the Committee approve, and if there is agreement on both sides, I am willing between now and Report stage to look for the appropriate words which would accomplish this purpose: that the Clause would come into operation when Order 1305 ceased to have effect—whatever date that may be, it may be a year or 15 months, I do not know—and would continue until the end of the year 1950. That gives it virtually six years from now—that is, the two Orders together. Then Parliament should be given the opportunity of continuing the Clause under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. So, by a combination of these methods, I shall keep Order 1305 going, bring this Clause in when that ceases, and Parliament can determine, on the date when we deal with the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, whether the Clause will go on or not. That is an attempt to bring both sides together.

Mr. Summers: May I express appreciation of the Minister's desire to


reconcile the various views which have been expressed in connection with this Clause? I would ask those who would wish to see the principle in Part III made a permanent feature, not to use this as the vehicle for attaining their end, because there are relatively few hon. Members here to-day who have looked upon this as other than a transitional matter. If they have ideas of introducing such features into our permanent industrial life I would suggest that there are more straightforward ways of bringing them about than by this course. I hope Members will appreciate the Minister's attitude, and will allow me to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 18, line 27, after "remuneration," insert:
or minimum remuneration for the work on which he is employed.

In line 31, after "1943," insert "the Education Act, 1944."—[Mr. McCorquodale.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 21, line 24, at end, insert:
organisation" includes, in relation to workers, an association of trade unions, and, in relation to employers, an association of organisations of employers;
superannuation scheme" means any enactment, rules, deed or other instrument, providing for the payment of annuities or lump sums to the persons with respect to whom the instrument has effect on their retirement at a specified age or on becoming incapacitated at some earlier age, or to the personal representatives or the widows, relatives or dependants of such persons on their death or otherwise, whether with or without any further or other benefits;
thrift scheme" means any arrangement for savings, for providing money for holidays or for other purposes, under which a worker is entitled to receive in cash sums equal to or greater than the aggregate of any sums deducted from his remuneration or paid by him for the purposes of the scheme.
trade union" includes an association of trade unions.
These are definitive words inserted in consequence of the Amendments we

accepted to Clause 13, and I think they speak for themselves.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 21, line 45, at end, insert:
and for any reference to the Education Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1942.
This Amendment is to bring the matter into line with the Scottish position.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir G. Mander: On a point of Order. Is it not proposed to call either of the new Clauses which stand in my name on the Order Paper?

The Temporary Chairman (Captain Cobb): It is not proposed to call either of those proposed Clauses.

Sir G. Mander: Because they are not in Order?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not the usual practice of the Chair to give a reason for not calling an Amendment.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Part III of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, 1940, as modified)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 25, line 35, after "work," insert "under similar conditions."
In the earlier part of our discussions on this Bill reference was made to the fact that the wages council procedure will be given greater elasticity than has hitherto prevailed under the trade boards technique. The need to ensure that workers doing the same work are treated alike by reason of the similarity of their work, and not for any other, applies in Part III of the Bill, as well as in Part II, because there arises the question whether inadequate wages are being paid by a compari-


son that is jointly arrived at after discussion between the two sides. Paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule deals with the question whether payments made are, or are not, less favourable than the terms and conditions of employment jointly arrived at. The Schedule as drafted says:
… if they are in accordance with the terms and conditions relating to workers engaged on similar work ….
The additional words would make that paragraph read:
… relating to workers engaged in similar work under similar conditions. …
The object of those words is to ensure that when a comparison is made between pay to one set of workers—when that pay is being given under a joint agreement—it shall be a fair one and not a distorted one and that all relevant considerations shall be taken into account. I have in mind, particularly, work done by repairers on estates or farms who may, quite properly, be paid a rate different from that which is appropriate for repair work agreed with the local trade union in the local town. The words are intended to make sure that, for the purpose of comparison, the work and conditions are taken into account and are not ignored, which might lead to unreasonable comparisons being made.

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment in the way in which I accepted the previous one. The question of similar conditions is a very broad one indeed. Conditions could be changed and the whole purpose of the Schedule would be nullified. We try here, as under Order 1305, to leave the question of agreements being not less favourable having regard to all the circumstances to the Industrial Court to determine.

Mr. Summers: The Minister has just used a phrase which may have a bearing on this point. He has just spoken about "having regard to all the circumstances." I do not find that phrase in the Schedule, and it is one which has very much the same effect as my Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: No, that phrase may not be in the Schedule, but perhaps the hon. Member will look at the actual words of the Schedule.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit those words?

Mr. Bevin: No, I am not going outside what has been put in the Schedule. The first paragraph reads:
Where in any trade or industry in any district terms and conditions of employment are established which have been settled by machinery of negotiation or arbitration to which the parties are organisations of employers and trade unions representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workers engaged in that trade or industry in that district (hereinafter referred to as "recognised terms and conditions"), all employers in that trade or industry in that district shall observe the recognised terms and conditions or such terms and conditions of employment as are not less favourable than the recognised terms and conditions.
That is what the hon. Member says in another form. You might have to bring in a man on an estate being treated in exactly the same manner as another man in another industry in the district. If he is a bricklayer on the estate, there is no difference between him and another who is building the house outside. On the other hand, there are certain people employed on the estate who would not be in that trade at all, and the Industrial Court would say so. I prefer in these very broad terms to leave it for argument before the Industrial Court whether or not the agreement exists and applies If it does, the wages should be paid, but the phrase "under similar conditions" could be manipulated in a thousand ways. We have long experience in this business I have known employers who have taken advantage of phrases like that to alter conditions and, with alterations of the conditions, away goes all the agreement. These words would lie open to very grave abuse. After all, if the thing is to be argued before the Industrial Court, it is quite easy to say whether it comes within the agreement, and I prefer to leave it on that footing.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this aspect of the matter? In testing whether the rates paid are less favourable than the recognised terms and conditions, it is quite likely that, associated with the rates which are in fact paid, are certain wages which are not part and parcel of the recognised terms and conditions, and if a comparison is to be made one would like to feel sure that those advantages are taken into account in comparing them with the recognised terms and conditions. If one could feel quite sure that that is the way in which the comparison will be carried out,


one would feel happier about the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the matter.

Mr. Bevin: I remember on one occasion an employer saying he gave his man 9 lb. of beef every Christmas, and he thought it a very good thing to do, but it was pointed out to him that, if he gave him a rise, he could give himself 9 lb. of beef next Christmas. What are the conditions? Is it cash or what? If it is cash that the hon. Member is talking about and the payment is taking a different form from that laid down in the agreement, it is easy to test whether it is less favourable. To give an illustration. There are some trades which do not want piece-work, but one firm may be working piece-work. It would be easy to show that the conditions under which they were working in one case were not less favourable than in the other. The purpose of the paragraph is that you cannot make an agreement apply to suit the whim of the union, but you have to decide whether the firm, having adapted itself to some other form, is actually treating the men as well or better than the agreement would allow. On that point I think the hon. Member is really met.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 27, line 18, at end, add:
(3) Any reference in this Schedule to a trade union shall be construed as including any organisation of employees, not being a registered trade union, recognised by the Minister for the purposes of this Schedule.
The Bill provides no definition of a trade union. I do not know that a definition is normally given, but in fact there is none, and the Amendment is designed to clarify what may otherwise be a subject of some doubt. In a normal case men are catered for by their trade union and no difficulty would arise, but the Bill specifically brings in local authorities. Paragraph 4 says that:
trade or industry includes the performance of its functions by a public or local authority.
In the case of local authorities it is a common practice for clerical workers to form a staff association and, in the case of the London County Council, there is an association catering for all clerical workers with salaries up to £1,000. They function really as a Whitley Council, and they get together with representatives of

the Council to discuss common problems. Differences occasionally arise which cannot be reconciled, and during the war the staff association has been able to go to the Minister and demand arbitration on matters on which there is a difference, and I regret to say that the staff association has even sometimes been successful. This arbitration now goes and, instead, this procedure will apply. "Terms and conditions in the trade" will presumably mean, as applied to local authorities, salaries and conditions of service which are normally paid by local authorities in the area to their staffs, and a staff association might come along to the Minister and say, "Our council is not paying salaries and performing the conditions that are customary among borough councils in London." Could they have a hearing? The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that, if an accredited association made a case of that sort, the Minister would be able to hear their views and form a judgment upon it.
Most of these people are not covered by any trade union. The staff association functions quite satisfactorily, and I suggest, in the interests of the staff—certainly not in the interests of the local authority—that they should be recognised for the purpose of making any representation to the Minister. I submit that this Amendment is a reasonable one for securing that object.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: My hon. Friend has moved the Amendment on behalf of some of his constituents, and I, on behalf of the trade unions, hope that the Minister will not accept it. It would create an unfortunate precedent in the industrial world and upset the balance of things in the railway world if we started a horse here that could be ridden anywhere and everywhere. If there are any organisations which are not registered as trade unions, they can be registered if they are proper organisations, and no preferential treatment should be given to organisations of the kind referred to in the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: We defined trade unions while my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) was out of the Chamber. It may be a union or an association of unions, but it does not go any further than that. There is nothing in this Bill to say that a union must be a


registered trade union. Indeed, we could not introduce that because there are a number of unregistered unions in the country. It is one of those things, like the British Constitution, which nobody has ever tried to define in an Act of Parliament, and I hope they will not. As the Bill stands, the term "trade union" expresses the form of organisation of employees which is, invariably, party to the machinery of negotiations or agreements, decisions or awards of the kind to which the Schedule relates. Therefore, whichever body, whether registered or unregistered, has actually been party to the agreement, is the determining factor as to whom we must recognise in this business.

Mr. Silkin: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has given that answer and has not succumbed to the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Silkin: On a point of Order. You have collected the voices, Major Milner, but I would point out that I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I did tot hear the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment has been put to the Committee and negatived.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to move, in page 27, line 18, at end, add:
Provided that, in the application of this Schedule to a local authority as regards the employment of administrative, professional, technical or clerical officers, references to recognised terms and conditions shall be construed as references only to terms and conditions settled by a joint industrial council or conciliation board constituted for the purpose of settling terms and conditions for the employment of such officers.
I regret the unavoidable absence of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) because he could have dealt with this matter much more efficiently than I can. My long association with a municipal county borough, however, assures me that if the Minister could accept the Amendment it would undoubtedly ease the working of this Bill when it is entered on the Statute Book. I wish to support the general principles of the Bill and to say that the continuance

of Part III of the National Arbitration Order for a period of five years, as now proposed to be amended, meets with the approval of the municipal authorities. They are, however, anxious that the wording of the Schedule should not either interfere with or stop those friendly and informal discussions which take place from time to time between the representatives of municipal authorities and certain of their officials with regard to salaries and conditions of service. As the Bill stands it is possibly wide enough to have that effect, and the object of the Amendment is to meet this position. A large number of the employees of local authorities are within the scope of joint industrial councils or of the conciliation boards, and there is no wish to depart from the proposals of this Bill under which they would continue to be subject to the Arbitration Order. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that, in relation to local authorities, the Bill will apply to those administrative, professional, technical, or clerical officers who are within the scope of the Whitley Council machinery. I devoutly hope that the Minister can see his way to accept the Amendment and so clarify any doubt which may have existed.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. R. Duckworth) and the association for which he is speaking desire that this machinery shall work with the utmost smoothness and good will, but I grieve to have to say that, in the view of the trade unions, the Amendment would have rather the contrary effect. In some cases it would lead to acute differences between grade and grade of people in the offices and between union and union. The Amendment is intended to apply to professional, technical or clerical workers, that is, the whole of the salaried staff in municipal offices. Many of them have their own organisations for technical staffs, but even the unions that cater for the generality of the workers also have members who grow up to leading workers, foremen, craftsmen and technicians and they keep on their union membership. The unions, naturally, wish to represent their own people, when their conditions are under discussion. That applies equally to the clerical grades, and it would be ill-advised to press the Amendment. If the conditions and rates for particular officers were under considera-


tion it would do no harm if another union, say the Electrical Trades Union, which is particularly keen on this, or the engineering trades unions appeared to speak for such of their members as were affected, whereas this form of words would tend to exclusion and make bad blood, which none of us want. My experience of these proceedings is that the more free, open and friendly you are with one another, the better they work.

Mr. Bevin: I do not think the Amendment is necessary. The Bill provides that what the Minister has to enforce is a joint agreement. What have been mentioned in the speeches are really individual contracts. It may be that architects and gas engineers have a scale of charges which they make when they take on a job, and so have medical officers of health under the B.M.A., but that is not a joint agreement and has nothing to do with the Bill. It is, if I may put it so, a one-sided professional arrangement. The arrangements made between town clerks and their local authorities is a matter of private contract and do not come within the terms of the Bill. The only arrangement I can enforce under Part III is a joint agreement. If I tried to define that people receiving over a certain amount should not come into the Bill, I should open up a vast problem. No two joint agreements are alike. In some cases there is purely a clerical agreement, like that between the railway clerks and the railway companies and in other cases the arrangement is different. The acid test I must apply before I can refer any case to arbitration is: Is there a joint agreement? I have to ask the Industrial Court to say whether the agreement exists and whether the Bill ought to apply to it. It would complicate some of the other parts of the Bill if I attempted to define this point any further.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I have heard with interest the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will further consider the matter at a later stage in the Bill's progress. I beg, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Fourth Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 18].

Orders of the Day — BISCUITS (CHARGES) ORDER, 1944

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Biscuits (Charges) Order, 1944, dated 19th December, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th January, be approved."—[Mr. Mabane.]

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I desire to raise a point of some substance on this Order, and it may be for the convenience of the House, if I state my case now so as to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to give consideration to a point which I think demands an answer. Provided the point can be satisfactorily explained, I do not dissent from the intention of the Order. The purpose, as I understand it, is to withdraw the subsidy on flour used in biscuit production. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have always been a very strong supporter of the Government's war policy of subsidising our basic food supplies. I have considered it one of the wisest decisions of the Government, being convinced that, if we had not followed that policy, which is costing us now £220,000,000 a year, our difficulties would have been considerably increased if prices of food had "rocketed." On the other hand, we all recognise that there will come a time when the policy of subsidising foodstuffs will have to be adjusted. I take it that the Government will always remember that normal supplies and prices must not be disturbed when that takes place.
The Ministry have a case that biscuit manufacturers are now, on the whole, able to make their margins and that there is no need for the continuance of this subsidy. Relatively, this is a small thing in relation to the whole problem, but there is no justification for continuing a charge on the taxpayers if it is not justified. It is all the more remarkable to have, in an Order of this description, such language as appears in paragraph (4), on page 2 of the Order. I recognise that this type of Order does not command the full attention of the House of Commons, so I propose to read the words in order to place them on record. Paragraph (4) says:
If any licensed biscuit manufacturer satisfies the Minister—
I take it that means the Minister of Food—


that payment in full of the charges imposed under this Order has inflicted, or would inflict, undue hardship upon him, the Minister acting under a general or special direction of the Treasury may repay or remit the whole or any part of such charges as he thinks fit.
This appears to me to introduce a very contentious principle into the relationship of the Minister of Food, the Treasury and the manufacturers. The Ministry must have satisfied themselves—and trade experience bears this out—that the subsidy is no longer necessary to biscuit manufacturers, and that withdrawal of the subsidy would not cause inflation in price or undue hardship among manufacturers. Yet here we have a provision that enables a Department of State to mete out special treatment to individual manufacturers. It occurs to me that this will represent negotiation between the Department and an individual manufacturer. All the information and figures will be private. There will be a private transaction between the two.
I should like to put a direct question to the Minister in charge of the Order. I hope he will withdraw that paragraph, or give an undertaking that it will be withdrawn. Let us assume that his decision is not in that direction. I want then to ask the Minister whether any Member of this House will be entitled to elicit all the necessary information, if it came within our knowledge that any preference of this description was given to any specific manufacturer. Would he be compelled, in answer to a question, to state all that information on the Floor of the House of Commons? It would obviously become known in the industry if any special manufacturer was getting treatment of this description. The facts of that individual business would not be known to the competitors. Great dissatisfaction would be created if there was any feeling that this advantage to the industry as a whole was being withdrawn generally but was still granted to a particular manufacturer. At this stage I do not want to labour the point. I think I have made the issue perfectly clear to the House, and I submit it is incumbent upon the Minister to make exceedingly clear, before this Order is approved, exactly what this provision means. It is a dangerous precedent, and we ought to know exactly to what we are being committed.

4.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining so clearly the main purpose of the Order. He is, of course, quite right in saying that the purpose of this Order is to draw back from biscuit manufacturers the subsidy which the State provides an flour. It has been the settled policy of the Government to maintain a stable price for bread, and the only point, as he will recognise, at which we inject the subsidy, is at the point of flour. Flour is used for other purposes as well as the making of bread, in particular for the manufacture of biscuits, so the subsidy on flour goes, in the ordinary way, to biscuit manufacturers. Again, as he points out, biscuit manufacturers really do not need, on the whole—and I notice he used the phrase "on the whole"—this additional assistance. Therefore this Order has been brought forward, so that the subsidy may be withdrawn from the biscuit manufacturers.
My hon. Friend, however, while accepting the general principle of the Order, takes exception to paragraph 4 of the Order, which he read out. He said that if I were able to offer a satisfactory explanation he would be happy. He also asked whether hon. Members would be able to elicit information about any arrangements made under this paragraph. It would not be for me to say that, but my general information is that Members of this House can ask Ministers whatever they like, and, in general, they get an answer, provided that security is not thereby endangered. The hon. Member said that, on the whole, manufacturers can manage without the subsidy, but the Ministry of Food in operating its maximum price arrangement, does not, and never has expected any manufacturer to operate on an unprofitable basis. It is anticipated that paragraph 4 will be interpreted something like this. In cases where the manufacturer desires to argue that hardship has arisen because his profit has fallen below, say, the pre-war average for the industry, he will proceed in this way—and incidentally we anticipate that such cases will be very few. He will be required to submit his costs, so that it may be determined whether he is selling any lines on an unprofitable basis, and it may then be found that the solution to his difficulty lies,


not in acting under this paragraph at all, but in suggesting to him—and after all, we are in the closest touch with these manufacturers—that he should discontinue the production of some unprofitable lines and produce more of profitable lines. If this does not rectify the position then it might be possible to allow him an appropriate increase in the price of certain of his products.

Mr. Barnes: Are these things which the right hon. Gentleman is now stating, the responsibility of the Minister?

Mr. Mabane: Yes. We are in daily contact, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, with food traders and associations of food traders, on all matters affecting prices and profits and matters of that kind. After all, we have to determine maximum prices, and as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not determine those maximum prices without first consulting the industries. Surely it has been one of the best features of the administration of the Ministry of Food that it has been able to carry the food trades with it so happily for so much of the way. [Interruption.] We advise traders. Traders can come to us if they are in difficulty; ours is a very human Department. They may sometimes think they have difficulties as a result of action by the Minister of Food, and we are able to say, "No, it is your own difficulty, but why not do so and so, for example?" We hope we may be able to overcome any hardship in the ways I am now suggesting, so that a reasonable margin of profit will be left, and it is only in the most exceptional cases indeed—so exceptional that my officers inform me they can scarcely conceive any such case arising—when neither of these suggestions apply, that consideration would be given to a remission of the charge under paragraph 4.
Let me emphasise that while the paragraph is included, we do not in the least want to have to operate it. The intention of the Order is that every manufacturer shall pay the charge laid down by this Order. Paragraph 4 has been inserted merely to deal with an extreme case which cannot be met by the normal methods of price adjustment such as I have outlined. I hope that explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend opposite, who is so expert in these matters, and who knows

how happily we get on with food manufacturers, and that it will satisfy him, too, that we should not, in the least, use any such powers as are here inserted to give particular favours to particular people. I have no doubt, as he says, that if any such thing were not to happen but be supposed to have happened, there are Members of this House who would ask us for the actual details, and I have no doubt that when we gave them, those Members would be satisfied we had done nothing to which objection should be taken.

Mr. W. H. Green: Is this principle, which seems to some of us entirely new and novel, an indication that in the future, as subsidies generally are withdrawn, these same conditions will prevail, and that if any manufacturer can prove that he is suffering as a result of the general withdrawal of subsidy, he can get a revision or rebate?

Mr. Mabane: I should not like to suggest that any general principle ought to be erected on this Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that this Order arises from the quite peculiar circumstance that the subsidy is paid on the flour. The intention of the subsidy is to keep down the price of bread. It is not the fault of the Ministry of Food that flour produces biscuits as well as bread. It would be more convenient to us if they were made of something else. Therefore, we have to proceed in this way in order to withdraw the subsidy.

Mr. Barnes: I must say that I am entirely dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister, and I ask him not to proceed with this Order to-night, but to take it back and look at it again. He admitted that his own Department does not anticipate that any occasion will arise. Is it worth his while to press this when hon. Members are in a difficulty? I do not want to divide the House under the circumstances, but I feel strongly dissatisfied with the Minister's statement. My right hon. Friend says that he cannot anticipate that the Department will have occasion to use it. Surely, it is not desirable that he should have a vicious principle like this introduces, and I beg of him to hold it over and have another look at it.

Mr. Mabane: I am afraid I could not give an undertaking of that character at all. All I can do is to put this to my hon.


Friend. Surely, he would not suggest that the Ministry of Food, which is responsible for dealing with these operations and which enters into contracts with manufacturers and prevents them from securing abnormal profits by fixing maximum prices, should introduce a practice which might force them to operate on an unprofitable basis. Hon. Members should remember that, in so far as manufacturers might be compelled to operate on an unprofitable basis, if this Order were to operate without any variation, manufacturers might argue that, but for the circumstances of war, and the restrictions imposed upon them, they would be able to make a profit. It has never been the wish of this House that manufacturers should be required to operate on an unprofitable basis, and it is for that reason only that we desire to prevent that undesirable circumstance arising, if we can help them along. I hope my hon. Friend will not regard it as a really serious variation from the previous practice of the Ministry.

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot make another speech. He may ask a question.

Mr. Barnes: I submit to the Minister that the subsidy has never been the instrument of the margin of profit of manufacturers. The expenses and efficiency of conducting their businesses do that. The subsidy is a universal and general figure.

Mr. Mabane: If I may be allowed to reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes; but they bear a relation to the maximum prices at which we allow the manufacturers to sell, and there is no limitation on our power to fix maximum prices. Surely, the cost of a product bears a very close relationship to the maximum price.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Biscuits (Charges) Order, 1944, dated 19th December, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BY-PASS ROAD, HEREFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: If hon. Members wonder why I should be raising the question of a by-pass road through the city of Hereford, let me say that it is not due to a misprint, but to the fact that my home is in Hereford and that I have a natural interest in preserving the amenities of that ancient city. I am, indeed, a citizen of no mean city, but it would be a great deal meaner if the Minister of War Transport had his way. He proposes to drive through the city of Hereford a road that he describes, with a fine disregard for logic and the English language, as an "internal by-pass road." It would cross the River Wye within a hundred yards of the existing 15th-century bridge, and would greatly impair the view of the cathedral and bridge from the river, and the fine stretch of the River Wye from the present bridge.
These views are among the loveliest in England. I do not claim that the view of the river and cathedral at Hereford has the sublimity of Lincoln, or the majesty of Durham, but it is perfect in its kind, surmounted, as it is, by the mouldering grandeur of the square tower of the cathedral. This proposal would seriously impair that view for future generations. As one who feels some responsibility for preserving this view for those generations, I feel it my duty to raise the matter in the House now, while there is still time for action. For, although the Minister's hand is raised to despoil, he has not as yet achieved any physical destruction, and, apparently, this proposal can still be reconsidered. I want very much to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that it should be abandoned, for I can see no argument in favour and innumerable arguments against. In fact, the only argument in favour of it that I have heard in Hereford is that it would take the cost of maintaining several of the city streets off the rates, and put it on to the national funds. That, of course, is not an argument which should have any weight.
I raised this matter in a Parliamentary Question on 24th January and received a sympathetic reply from the Parliamentary Secretary which I would like to examine in detail. My hon. Friend said that the existing trunk road through the city of Hereford is narrow and congested, and cannot be widened. There, I agree with him, and that will probably be the only point of agreement. This lovely


bridge, coming down from the Middle Ages, is certainly narrow and congested, and I do not propose to dispute—no sensible person would—the need for another route. My hon. Friend proceeded:
There is comparatively little through traffic and the by-pass road outside the city would not, therefore, meet the need.
I must say, as a local resident, that I cannot agree with that argument. Hereford is not normally a great centre of traffic. Its population is now swollen by the needs of war, but in peace time it was a rather lovely, sleepy market town and no great centre of traffic. It does lie on the main road from South Wales to the North of England and on that from South Wales to Birmingham, and I should have thought, on the evidence of my own eyes, that there was a great deal of through traffic passing through Hereford and that there is occasion for a real bypass road, which would not go through the city. The Parliamentary Secretary proceeded:
For this reason, the County Highways Committee and the Town Council are considering an alternative route immediately outside the city wall, with a new bridge over the river Wye.
I think that was a little disingenuous, because what has happened is that the Minister of Transport has proposed this bridge and submitted it to the City Council and the County Council. The County Council, I regret to say, have approved the scheme, but they have no responsibility for the area in which the changes are proposed. The City Council have not, as yet at any rate, approved the scheme, and I trust they will never do so. They have had a discussion on it, but the discussion was deferred. The appearance of the bridge was not even discussed at that meeting and that is the fundamental aspect of the matter to which I wish to refer. The Minister went on:
I am assured that this plan would not spoil the views of the river or of the cathedral, and that it would open up a better view of the city wall structure. The Committee and the Council also hope to preserve a portion of the ancient ditch.
This was in answer to certain objections which I had made beforehand, and I had better explain, at this point, a little more precisely what the proposal is. It is proposed that this internal by-pass road should diverge from the Abergavenny-Hereford Road, should cross the Wye

within 100 yards of the existing bridge, and then pass into the City of Hereford along the side of the ancient ditch, and run very close to the thirteenth century stone wall, which is built against the face of the Saxon earth-work of A.D. 1055. The greater part of this ancient ditch would disappear, and that does not appear to be contested by the Minister. In the view of the archaeological experts whom I have consulted, the ancient wall would tumble down through the vibration of the traffic.
These are not unimportant questions. In this age we should preserve everything we possibly can that has come down to us from the distant past. The influence of our ancient parish churches and castles upon the stability of our national character is something which cannot be under-estimated and I should be no party to destroying anything that comes down to us from these distant ages. But the preservation of the ancient ditch and the stone wall are relatively small matters compared with this superb view of the cathedral and of the river from the bridge. It is not a matter that requires an expert in road transport for its assessment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Will my hon. Friend explain how the view of the cathedral from the bridge is affected?

Mr. Thomas: Because it is obviously more difficult to see the cathedral in its proper perspective, if you have two bridges instead of one, especially as one of these is sure to be some horrible concrete monstrosity such as we see in profusion nowadays. The view of the bridge, the Bishop's Palace and the cathedral and surrounding houses is at present almost perfect. If a new bridge were added it would obviously disturb the proportions of that view and would make it physically much more difficult to see. In order to get the view, it would be necessary to go much further back than is now the case.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The view from the bridge itself?

Mr. Thomas: I am speaking of the view from the towing-path and the river, and adjacent fields, which certainly would be very seriously disturbed by such a proposal as this. Conversely, I do not think that the Minister would deny that the


long stretch of the River Wye, one of our most magnificent rivers, is bound to be spoilt by a second bridge in such close proximity to the first. The Minister went on to say:
The scheme is still in a preliminary stage, and the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission will be obtained before it is adopted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 824.]
This is good news and perhaps he will be able to give us their views to-day. At any rate the scheme is in a state where it is possible to make amendments and to preserve the present amenities of Hereford. If this road were absolutely necessary, and if there were no alternative, it might have to be regretfully accepted. I doubt even then whether I should be prepared to be a party to it, but a much stronger case could be made out for it; but that is not the case.
There is at least one excellent alternative, and possibly two other sites, for this by-pass road. One has been proposed by the Woolhope Club, which is a very famous club of Herefordshire naturalists. It has been put forth in some detail by its Secretary, Mr. George Marshall, himself a great antiquarian. It proposes that the by-pass road should be a real by-pass road, running on the outskirts of Hereford, and that it should diverge a little earlier from the Abergavenny-Hereford Road and should cross the River Wye higher up, near an existing railway bridge, in a position where it would not impair the view of the cathedral or the converse view of the river. It would then run very close to the line of the railway. I can see no reason why that should not be carried out unless the Ministry is tied to some doctrinaire view of the width of by-pass roads. I hope at any rate that if there is some convincing reason why this scheme should not be adopted, we shall hear it to-night. That suggestion is in effect for a by-pass road to the West of Hereford. There is also a suggestion for a road East of the existing Wye Bridge. I believe that there are very good alternative sites for such a by-pass.
There is one final consideration which I wish to urge. These alternatives are very much cheaper than the proposal of the Ministry of Transport. Clearly, if a large number of houses have to be pulled down in the middle of a city, the cost is going to be very much greater than the cost of a by-pass driven through open

fields. The cost of the Ministry's proposed road would indeed be very great to-day. One item alone entailing the pulling down of a church would cost at least £30,000.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is an error.

Mr. Thomas: It seems clear from the maps that that would be the case. I should be happy to be assured that it is not so, but, in any case, the cost of a road to be driven through a city is obviously much greater than one constructed outside. It was the proud boast of Pericles that the ancient Athenians were lovers of beauty without extravagance. I hope that the Ministry of Transport will not earn the reputation of being extravagant destroyers of beauty.

4.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I must start by making an: apology to my hon. Friend on a point which he has not raised but which, I think, I ought to explain. The terms of the answer, which was a written answer, were a little unfortunate and might have led my hon. Friend or the House to think that this scheme had been drawn up by the local authority. Of course that was not so. It is a trunk road. The responsibility rests entirely with my Ministry. The scheme is ours; we plan, we decide and we pay. If my answer did not make that wholly plain, I apologise, and it was my mistake. But that is my only apology. I am not going to apologise to my hon. Friend for the plan itself. As at present advised, I think it a good plan and a much better one than the others of which he has spoken and much more calculated to serve the true interests of Hereford.
It is plain—and I do not think that my hon. Friend will dispute it—that something must be done about the traffic on the existing trunk road through Hereford. That trunk road enters from the south by a bridge across the Wye which was built in 1490 and is scheduled as an ancient monument and has a carriage way of 19 feet 8 inches. It is a magnificent bridge which it is vital to preserve exactly as it is, but it is a bottle-neck for modern traffic. The trunk road proceeds right through the heart of the city, through narrow streets, which are also shopping streets, and it goes very close to the west-end of the cathedral. It has


four sharp right-angle turns, which, with heavy, big vehicles, inevitably cause congestion. It is the worst possible route for large through traffic, and especially for the heavy vehicles which, with the great noise and vibration which they cause, are so common on our roads to-day. The traffic problem was bad enough before the war. It will become much worse in the next two or three decades, with the great increase in the number of motor vehicles to which we must inevitably look forward. Something has to be done. What shall be done?
My hon. Friend said that there ought to be a by-pass for through traffic. Yes, we may some day need a by-pass for through traffic; but if so it will have to be not, I think, on Mr. George Marshall's line, but much further out. But, according to our investigations, there is not the volume of through traffic on this route to justify, or nearly to justify, the construction of such a wide-flung by-pass now. The great bulk of traffic on this road is produced by the large number of vehicles converging into Hereford. The amount of traffic which passes through Hereford without stopping there—which would, in fact, use a wide-flung by-pass—is very small indeed. We believe that it would not, if it were constructed, carry a large volume of traffic. We believe that it would do very little indeed to help the solution of the congestion problem in the centre of Hereford. Secondly, there is another plan, that of widening the existing road.

Mr. Thomas: The problem of congestion in Hereford now is very acute. But Hereford now has a population three times as great as in peace-time. It will presumably revert to its peace-time population after the war. This congestion is almost entirely due to military, and in particular Air Force, traffic.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should be surprised to learn that the total traffic of Hereford to-day is greater than in peace-time. There are very few places in this country about which that can be said. Does my hon. Friend seriously suggest that there is more traffic to-day than in peace-time?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, much more.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is very rare throughout the country. But, even in peace-

time, there is a problem which must be dealt with. I hope that my hon. Friend now agrees with me that you cannot widen this many-angled, tortuous road through the centre of Hereford. To do so would be vandalism, to say the least. I do not think anybody would want to do it. Certainly we do not.
Thirdly, there is the proposal by the Woolhope Naturalists Field Club, drawn up by that eminent authority, Mr. George Marshall. That scheme has merits; but it has some difficulties too. There are real engineering difficulties. I do not want to exaggerate it, but it would be running parallel to the railway, as Mr. Marshall proposes, and there would be the problem of passing very close to the railway station. That is not so easy as it sounds. It would be serious on a road with heavy traffic. There is the problem of the stockyard. Again, some solution for that would have to be found. I think that that, again, is not at all straightforward. Much more serious, there are real planning difficulties. My hon. Friend repeated that Mr. Marshall, or the Club, at one time said that this should be a real by-pass, a motorway, and my hon. Friend said just now that it would be on the outskirts of Hereford. There is one sense in which that is true; another in which it is not. If it is a real by-pass, if it is a motor road, it is restricted to motor traffic, and access to it is cut off. The through traffic goes right through, and traffic does not pass across it. In other words, it would bisect the ancient city of Hereford, separating it from all that lies to the west of the railway line—and a good deal of Hereford is there. It would bisect Hereford into two parts. That is a real planning difficulty.

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Marshall certainly asked for a motorway. I am not myself necessarily advocating a motorway. I do not care whether it is a motorway or an ordinary road, so long as it does not destroy the beauties of Hereford.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It depends on what is meant. If they were thinking of a bypass, they ought to make it a motor-way. But on this line, parallel to the railway, it would not attract the great mass of the vehicles which now go into the centre of Hereford. It would be too far away. If I am right in thinking that the great bulk of the traffic is not through traffic but is traffic coming to Hereford.


what is wanted in order to relieve these narrow shopping streets is something which the people will use because it brings them nearer to their destinations. As at present advised we think that our line is much more likely to do that. I am speaking on the information which I have. It may turn out not to be correct, but I think it is. Our divisional road engineer has succeeded in making it plain to Mr. Marshall that some of the objections which he and the Club originally saw to our proposal did not hold good. There is the question of St. Nicholas Church. We shall not pull it down. The line does not touch it. It remains perfectly exempt, and with adequate margins form the new road which we propose. We shall not do anything to spoil the view of the Cathedral—not in the least. We certainly shall not do anything, as was at one time asserted, to spoil the views of the Wall. We shall open them out. I do not think it can be maintained that the vibration will bring the Wall tumbling down. There is to be a 30 ft. margin. We can replace the ancient Sally Walk around Hereford. I hope it will be done. I think this proposal will greatly add to the amenities of Hereford and make the ancient walk more what it ought to be for the citizens of Hereford, a great feature of their city.
The plan has been unanimously approved by the Highways and Bridges Committee of the County Council. I am told that there is no objection from the Hereford City Council. My hon. Friend says that that is not a final decision. So far as I have had reports, there was no substantive objection brought forward in the discussion, though perhaps I am not fully informed. In any case, we have consulted the Inspector of Ancient Monuments of the Ministry of Works about the Wall and the Ditch; and we have his opinion that there would be no objection to our plan if the application already made for the scheduling of the Wall and the Ditch were to be carried through, and they were to be scheduled as ancient monuments. Our scheme is not a by-pass. I do not know where my hon. Friend got his phrase "internal by-pass"—not from us, I think. It is what we describe as "a relief." We do not accept his view that our bridge will be a monstrosity. I think that if he had been able to visit some of our recent bridges about the country con-

structed in the last 10 or 15 years, or had even seen the photographs, which we had in a Committee Room upstairs last year, of some of the many bridges which have been constructed—which, of course, always have the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission—he would say that they are among the best which have been constructed in England in all the centuries since bridges have been built.
This scheme—our exact scheme—has been strongly supported by an eminent authority, Mr. George Cadbury, who has written a special pamphlet about the preservation of the amenities of Hereford. I have it here and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is familiar with it. If he consults that pamphlet he will find a long explanation of why our scheme is right. There are photographs, and pages describing the purposes in view. I will not weary the House with a long citation, but will give this quotation:
The best way of dealing with this will be to agree to the Ministry of Transport's proposals and build a new bridge just above the present one and to form a wide new traffic boulevard along the west wall of the city.
I feel sure that if I were to consult with my hon. Friend on the spot, with competent authorities, I could convert him to the view that our scheme is the best, but I do not want to ask him to accept conversion this afternoon. I only want to assure him that this is, as I said in answer to his Parliamentary question, at a preliminary stage. No one is committed to it. It is a tentative plan.
If we go on with it, of course we shall go through our normal procedure. Under Section 13 of the Trunk Road Act, 1934, my Noble Friend has the power to supersede a section of an existing trunk road and to construct a new one instead. That is what we are doing. If he does that, however, then on the demand of the county council he must hold a local public inquiry at which objections can be put forward, alternative proposals put up, the whole thing ventilated and every grievance heard.
In fact, whether the county council ask for it or not, it is the normal practice of my Noble Friend—not perhaps in every case, but in very nearly every case, and in every important case—to carry out such a local public inquiry. When he holds it, he puts in charge of it some perfectly independent person, perhaps a


member of the Bar, certainly not an official of the Ministry. My Noble Friend always listens very closely to the advice and report which the independent inquirer may present. We are not wedded to this scheme. If it turns out to be wrong, if anyone can show us that it is bad, that there is a better scheme, we shall very gladly accept that better scheme instead.
I would like to end by making this offer to my hon. Friend—he can take it if he

likes, as a formal pledge. Before any-think else whatever is done, I will ask my Chief Road Engineer, Mr. Lyddon, to go down to Hereford, and have an informal conference with all concerned, in order to ventilate and discuss every aspect of this proposal, and to see whether some agreed proposal cannot be found.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Five o'Clock.